One minute timer.
» That's it. >> Okay. I can I can just reset the
password for you if you'd like. Otherwise, you'll just get
» We're live. You can call the meeting to order.
Good morning everyone and uh welcome to the committee of adjustment meeting for
Friday, August 14th. I hereby uh call this meeting to order
at uh 10:01 a.m. And before we begin, I'd like to acknowledge that we are
working on the lands traditionally occupied by indigenous peoples.
Indigenous people continue to care for this land and continue to shape our
township. We show our respect and will continually honor the treaties that were
signed as we consider our decisions and actions.
Uh I would ask members of the committee, are there any declarations of pecuniary
interest or
uh conflict of interest? I see member Schmidt has his hand up.
» Yes. uh in application uh B26-13
that is my brother I received no financial anything from him I assure you
um however um I should declare and uh remove myself from that
» thank you very much uh so noted Madam Secretary
uh you would also had the opportunity to uh read and review the minutes of our uh
July 17th uh committee meeting and I have a motion
from uh moved by member Jarvis, seconded by member Schmidt. Be it resolved that
the township of Georgia Bay Community of Adjustment approves the minutes of July
17 uh 2026 as circulated. All those in
favor, please signify by raising your hand. Thank you. The motion is carried
and the minutes are approved. This morning there's a public meeting
for two consent applications and seven minor variance applications.
If you wish
for some reason.
» Oh, you
okay? [clears throat]
» So, this morning
we'll have a technician. Thank you.
Uh this morning there's a public meeting scheduled for two consent applications
and seven minor variance applications. If you wish to be notified of the
decision of the application on this agenda, please add your name to the list
uh that is on the desk in front or you can register online. I'll briefly
summarize the procedure to be followed this morning. First, the uh clerk will
advise the committee as to when, how, and to whom notice of each of the
hearings was circulated for the applications being considered.
Next, each of the applications will be considered separately. Planning staff
will advise as the person as to the purpose and effect of the applications
and provide any information that is relevant. The clerk will summarize all
correspondence on file and from there, the applicant may make a brief
presentation if they so choose. Also, the public will have an
opportunity to speak to the applications being considered. After the public
forum, the committee will then deliberate on the proposed applications
and consider a motion to pass uh defeat or defer the decision of the
application. The
consent application being considered this morning are E26-13
for 264 264 Hiron Trail, B26-14 for 135 Port 7 Road North.
The minor variance applications being considered are A26-22
for 15 Silver Sands Lake Road, A26-25 for 259 Heskuits Drive, A26-26
for 39 Railway Street, A26-27
for 268 ID 540. A26-28 for 98 uh Driftwood, A26-29
for 192 Wild Rice Trail, and A26-30 for two island 3150.
To the clerk, please.
Notice of each of the applications was sent by first class mail to the
respective owners and assessed persons within 120 meters, 500 meters, or 800
meters, and to those persons and agencies likely to have interest in the
application. The notices were sent at least 20 days prior to this morning's
meeting. Included in each notice was an explanation of the purpose and effect of
the application and a key map showing the location of the property. Other
relevant information may have also been provided. These circulations were
provided in accordance with provisions of the Planning Act 1990.
» Thank you. Our first consent application is application B26-13
for 264 Huran Trail. Uh to the planner, please.
» Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of committee. First application as stated
is B2613 for 264 on Trail.
The subject property is comprised of 1.72 hectares with a frontage on six
mile lake of 156.97 meters. At the present time, the
property has a detached dwelling on it that was constructed on the lot. Sorry,
detached dwelling on it and a garage on the neighboring
property. Both 264 and 290 Hiron Trail are in the same ownership. Access to the
property is from here on trail which is a private is a public road and becomes a
private road at 290 Hiron Trail. A pre-application consultation request
was made to the township on June 18th, 2026 with the report being issued on
June 19th, 2026. At the time the of the pre-application
submission, the owner was proposing to create two new residential lots and one
retained lot. Based on the submitted proposal, it was determined at that time
that what was being requested would require an official plan amendment and
zoning bylaw amendment based on the deficiency in lot frontages. At that
time, the owner decided that they would move forward with a request for a
boundary adjustment between the two abiding lots known as 264 and 290 on
trail that are both owned by the applicant. It can be noted that the
justification behind the request is to sever and merge a person portion of 264
Hiron Trail to include a detached garage that was constructed on 264 Hiron Trail
in error. A site plan was prepared in July 2014 by Nino Van Harten Ontario
Land Surveyor for a proposed addition on 290 Hiron Trail that identified a garage
that was thought to be on 290 Hiron Trail but was actually loc located
located on 264. No new lots are being created and no no lot frontages are
being reduced. The intent of the consent application as
stated is a boundary adjustment between two abuing parcels of land in the same
ownership. The portion of 264 here on trail proposed to be severed and merged
with two 290 here on trail comprised of approximately 0.59 hectares with the
final area to be confirmed through the preparation of a reference plan. The lot
frontage is not being altered and will remain the same at 156.97
m. This consent act application will
rectify the issue of the detached garage being built in the wrong location.
Planning staff have conducted a detailed analysis of the proposal based on
applicable planning legislation and are recommending approval subject to
standard conditions of consent. The committee does have the option to
approve, deny with reasons, or defer the application for additional information.
Thank you. >> Thank you. Uh, Madame Secretary, has
there been correspondence in this application?
» One letter was received from Kaylee Nicholson, chief building official,
stating she has no concerns. One letter was received from the District of Msoka,
stating they have no objection to the application, and two letters of support
were received from Sheila Nazarelli and Todd Join.
» Thank you. Is the applicant present? And do they wish to address the committee?
And do you have anything to add to what the plane department presented already?
» Um, yes. >> Okay. Would you come up to the
microphone and give us your name and address for the record, please?
» My name is Joe Schmidt and it's 290 here on trail and 264 here on trail. Um, I
just wanted the main reason for the severance a is to get the garage on the
property, but the reason that I'm running the lot line where it is is to
prevent um potential future owners from being able to sever that lot into three
three different lots because they could go for a reasonzoning and we don't want
to develop that area. So, that's why I'm taking what I can.
» Okay. Thank you very much. And maybe I just ask you to stay there in case there
are any questions as we go along. Okay. >> Uh
is there any member of the public that wishes to address the committee on this
application? Okay. Seeing none, I'll close the public
portion of the meeting and bring the application before the committee for any
questions or concerns. And we'll begin with member Predco.
Thank you and through for your patience and through you chair. Um just and I and
I'm sure I know the answer to this but I just want to verify on the the um
plan that was provided uh site plan was was provided in the report. It has a
proposed addition illustrated but that's not for consideration. and we're just
consider considering the severance. Thank you
» through you, Mr. Chair. Yes, that's correct. That was the original that was
the survey that actually showed that the garage was on the wrong property.
» Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank [clears throat] you,
» Member Jarvis. >> Thank you, Chair. Uh Deb, do we have a a
survey that shows the revised property line uh after the severance? Because I I
couldn't find that in the documentation. >> Uh I can bring that up. It was in the
the actual um presentation and plus it was in the
» I didn't see that. >> Yes.
» If you would mind bringing up for me. Thank you.
» Give me the page number in the report.
» Was there a question about that? Member Jarvis.
» It's just the revised all the property lines I see do not include the garage.
So they all the the original all I'm seeing is the property lines as per
their original drawing, not with the revision. And I'm just curious to know
how the property line aligns. I'm I have no problem with this. I just wanted to
see the see what it looks like.
How about this? This application I have lots of questions.
I brought it up on the on the screen. A member Jarvis
Excuse the confusion. I just follow up then. Okay. I
So the lot to be retained is the one with the cottage on it.
» It's a lot being separate that has cottage on it. Correct.
» No. If you're looking at the screen,
part one is the piece that has the garage on it. That is to merge with the
one beside it. We don't have that doesn't show 290. The actual severance
sketch does not show 290. This is 264 here on trail.
» Yeah. >> So, the piece to be severed is part one
that will merge with 290 that has the garage on it and the retained portion is
vacant.
» [clears throat] >> Maybe I'll take this offline afterwards,
but thank you. >> Okay. So, we're good with that.
» Uh are there any does the committee have any further questions or comments
regarding this application? Okay. Uh seeing none,
uh I will read the resolution. It is moved by uh member Hazelton,
seconded by member Matthews. Be it resolved that the Township of Georgia
Bay Committee of Adjustment hereby grants provisional approval to the
consent application B26-13 to sever a 0.59 hectare parcel of land
containing detached garage that was inadvertently constructed on the subject
property despite being intended to be located within the boundaries of 290
Kiron Trail and subject to the following conditions.
One, that the owner provide a property tax certificate or correspondence from
township financial services indicating that all property taxes have been paid
up to date with respect to the properties subject to this decision.
Two, that a draft reference plan be completed by an Ontario land surveyor
and a digital copy filed with the secretary treasur of the committee of
adjustment. Three, that a copy of the deposited reference plan be provided to
the secretary treasur. Four, that a draft transfer be prepared by a
solicitor and submitted to the secretary treasurer in preparation for the
creation of a certificate of official describing the parcels created by
consent. and five that a solicitor's written undertaking shall be provided to
the secretary treasurer indicating that the necessary steps have been taken to
implement the conveyance and merger consolidate the severed and benefiting
parcels of one property identification number and alter the benefiting parcel
if it was created pursuant to section 50 or 53 of the planning act so that it is
not identical parcel land or otherwise addressed to the satisfaction of the
township section 50 subsection 12 of the planning act to facilitate the merger of
the lands. And six, that all fees and dispersements, legal, engineering, and
planning, if any, occurred by the township with respect to the
applications being paid for by the respective owners. All those in favor,
please indicate by raising your hand. Thank you. The [clears throat] motion is
carried and the application is approved. Thank you.
Our second consent application is B26-14
for 135 Port7 Road North.
Uh to the planner, please. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With your
permission, I will share my screen.
Morning
committee and everyone in attendance both here and online. My name is Jeff
Katkkey and I'm a registered professional planner employed by the
township of Georgian Bay and we're here this morning again regarding application
number B2614 regarding a property municipally known
as 135 Port 7 Road North. The owner is a numbered company and the applicant is
represented by MHBC planning. Jamie Robinson who's also a registered
professional planner is here in the chambers.
The site is located at the south part of Georgian Bay Township in what is known
as the Port Severn Urban Center. And more specifically, it's located on
Island K on Port 7 Road North and on Little Lake.
The purpose of the application is to request consent for easement across
lands known as 135 Port 7 Road North for overland storm water flow routes to
benefit lands known as 117 Port 7 Road North. The effect of the application is
to preserve storm water flows from Port 7 Road North to Little Lake after a 48
unit residential development is completed at 117 Port 7 Road North.
One owner controls both of these lands and the 48 unit residential development
is being considered by planning council. Uh B2614 that is before the committee
today is only an easement and as you can see in this drawing the easement is
represented by the dotted line with two dots in it. Whereas the overland storm
water flows are represented by this dotted line that
crosses the property in the emergency overland flow
approximately here and in the regular overland flow
approximately here and then weaves along the property line uh within that uh
easement. So it it it crosses in a new number of places and depending on the
amount of storm water that might be conveyed it it may be considerably onto
135 port 7. It may be very nominally on 135 Port 7.
This is a survey of 135 Port 7. 117 Port 7 is located to the west and you can see
it is improved with a a detached residential dwelling which right now has
permission uh for a temporary use of a real estate office. It has a boat house
and a dock which are not entirely on the subject lands.
This is the consent sketch that was prepared by the agent. And again, it
shows the residential development on 117 Port 7 Road North to the west. And it
shows the existing dwelling and boat house. Um, plus uh this storm water
easement.
There is a type one fish habitat, but it is being very fully considered through
the resoning application and through the site plan application for 117 Port 7
Road for which this easement will benefit.
There are no natural hazards that affect the easement.
Again, although the temporary zoning of these lands are
what they are and the residential zoning is what it is, this is an easement for
the adjacent uh multiple residential zone to the west.
And again, I'm sure everyone is familiar with this part of Port Sever. It's
currently uh the Sunny Lee Resort that is next door at 117 Port 7. And there is
a house that is I gather soon to be used if not already used as a real estate
sales office on a temporary basis.
The planning services review that I completed is that this proposed easement
um it falls within the subject lands in the Port Sever urban center in both the
MOP and the Georgian Bay official plan. B2614 conforms to the Mscoa official
plan and the Georgian Bay official plan. The fish habitat, as I mentioned, is
being considered through application Z2614.
And there are no hazardous lands andor hazardous forest types for wildland fire
that affect the proposed easement. And the Georgian Bay zoning bylaw as
amended does not regulate storm water management directly or the proposed
easements other than saying something to the effect that a proposed easement
can't be registered without the permission of the property owner. And in
this case, the two property owners are essentially controlled by the same
developer. Therefore, in my opinion, B2614 is good
planning, having regard to provincial interests, consistent with the
provincial planning statement 2024 and conforming to the Mskoka official plan
and the Georgian Bay official plan while complying with the Georgian Bay zoning
bylaw. The committee does have options as
always, and you've asked us to present them to you. You can approve with the
recommended conditions. You can approve with varied conditions. Or you could
refuse stating reasons for the committee's refusal. You could refer
this back to myself. Or you could defer it.
But of course, I am recommending that you approve it. And I won't read this as
I know the chairman will read it shortly. Um but I will draw your
attention to condition number three which is changing uh given discussions
that started late last night uh with the agent and concluded just moments before
this meeting. And essentially what is being done to condition three is the
addition of an optional outcome that could allow for its waiver. Again, the
development the the the development of the storm water flows in the easement is
dependent upon the development to the west of 117 Port 7 Road North, which is
being reviewed uh by council, by the district, by planning staff under both
zoning and site plan control. Um there may be other options that are not
enunciated in condition three that will satisfy its purpose. And what paragraph
C, which is new today, states is that if those other means are found that we can
still wave condition number three without coming back to you to let you
know what that might be. But again, those uh options would be reviewed
either as part of the zoning or more likely as part of the site plan control
process. So I thank you very much for your
attention and I'm available for questions.
Thank you, Mr. Cranky. Um, Madam Secretary, there have been
correspondence in its application.
» One letter was received from Kelly Nicholson, chief building official,
stating she has no comments, and one letter was received from the district of
Mskoka stating they have no objection to the application.
» Thank you. Is the applicant present or their agent? And do they wish to address
the committee on this application? Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman and
committee members. My name is Jamie Robinson. I'm a planner and a partner
with MHBC Planning and Barry. If I can just get screen sharing permission, that
would be great. [clears throat] Just have a couple of things I want to add to
what Mr. Kraki has provided, but should be able to screen share. Should be able
to
Just while it's loading here, the um I do agree with the recommendations from
Mr. Kraki in his analysis and with respect to I'll just start at the end
with respect to condition number three that modification is really just to
provide some flexibility in how that condition is dealt with. It's the key
aspect is that drainage has to be the whole purpose behind this condition is
drainage and what it allows for is direct sign off by the district and the
township in an agreement by the applicant if some other solution is is
achieved outside of the drainage act as opposed to being very specific. So I
think it's just it's one of those or situations that everyone has to be agree
in agreement with first off. So just a couple of key elements for committee's
consideration is that this uh this application
is a very technical application. It's not sort of the traditional consent
application that this committee deals with. It's to deal with a very technical
issue of storm water management and drainage.
And what I think the committee needs to understand is first the principle of
development related to this site has been established for a number of years.
in this development concept. And effectively what happens is through the
detailed site plan control process um specific site design elements are
realized and one of those elements was the storm water management and how storm
water management's to be completed which resulted in then this sort of technical
application coming into play sort of as the site plan agreements in its final
step. And uh so we are sort of in our final step of the site plan process with
staff and there's a subsequent tweak to the zoning that's being completed as
well to deal with the shoreline area. But I think the key takeaway for this
committee is that at the start um today sheet flow happens from a
stormwater perspective across the site from Port Sever Road through the site
out to the water. When there's something constructed on this site, when this
development's completed, that storm water effectively goes to one area and
then would outlet through this this drainage easement which is on the
neighboring property. Our client again also does own the neighboring property.
Um there likely will be some future development or expansion of this
proposal onto that site at some point in the future. But in the intern we need
diseasement because the properties haven't been merged as of yet or or may
never be merged. Um so again we we do agree with staff's recommendation. I'll
just show a brief uh one drawing here that shows make that
bigger for you
that shows the concept and what's being proposed on the subject site. Um so you
can get a a feel for that. But again, this principle of use has already been
established. And then this figure does show the location of the easement along
the the side of the property. From a technical perspective, CC TAM
engineering has been retained and they've undertaken a wholesome review
from a storm water management perspective and all that their technical
report has been reviewed by township professionals as well as district
professionals. Um so with that, Mr. chairman and members of committee, if
there's any questions, I can do my best to try to answer those today for you. I
guess the the only last thing I would mention is that from a quality
perspective is that there is a storm water management uh plan in place for
the site that does require an oil and grit separator for your the standard
flows. This easement is only necessary for that one and 100year storm. So the
major storm event or the traditional storm septer couldn't handle that event
then then there's some overland flow provided as a result of this. So from a
quality perspective and quantity perspective the design all meets
Ministry of the Environment standards with respect to storm water management.
So that was just a item I wanted to add. >> Okay. [clears throat]
Thank you Jamie. Is there any member of the public that wishes to address the
committee on this application? Okay, seeing none, I'll close the public
portion and bring the application before the committee for any questions or
comments. And let's begin with member Predco.
» Thank you through you, chair. And my microphone's working at this time. Just
a very quick question to either the planner or to the uh agent, and that is
whether or not this property is in the uh source water protection zone. um in
Port Severn and I'm just wondering if there's any concerns with water or
affecting that um that provision that we have in in that area.
So the SSEA did not comment with respect to this easement. However, they did
comment with respect to the development of 117 Port 7 Road North and they did
not have any concerns because again it is being engineered in such a way that
uh there should be no impact on water quality.
» Okay. Thank you. That's just want to make sure.
» Uh member Matthews. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um Mr. Robinson,
you talked about the one in aundred year storm which we know happens about every
5 years now. Um I'm just wondering if it's worth making it I don't know 10%
bigger 20% bigger. Um are there concerns because we've seen many application or
many instance where the one in aundred year storm has had catastrophic effect
in different places in the world
» through you u Mr. chairman to the member. Um I'm not an engineer so I
can't specifically speak to that. Uh but I I think part of the my based on my
experience in in working with these situations
um the engineers have taken into consideration the size of the drainage
area, the size of not just on the site but any other sheet flow that might be
happening and they've designed it accordingly. I will certainly bring that
comment up to them. Uh but I based on the review and the size of this
easement, it it isn't just the channel, it provides for a maintenance area
outside the channel as well. So it's it appears to be sufficiently sized.
» I will do that. >> Member Jarvis.
» Thank you, Chair. And I'm just going to piggy back on member Matthew's comments
about the one in 100 year storm now being more like a one in five year or
even less type storm. Um I'm curious is the current drainage in line with with
this? Are we just augmenting what is already in place naturally
» through you u Mr. Chairman to the member? So the current situation is
there are no detailed drainage. So basically the water would flow from port
there's no ditches on port 7 road either. So the water basically just
flows naturally across the site. There's no confined drainage. But what happens
as a result of this development is there is a drainage plan put in place where
drainage is directed to one area and then and then out towards the lake in
this specific location. So that's what's happening. Appreciate it if it's okay to
follow up. Um so what we're doing is we're now taking a flow that's spread
over a fair bit of land where it can be absorbed or any anything that's in it
can be absorbed and concentrating it into one sort of channel. That's a good
size channel. I understand that. Um, we know that salt is a problem within our
whole district as as a runoff issue. We also know that when you concentrate
runoff, especially storm water runoff, you get whatever residue from people
washing cars, oil draining out of cars, and then you've got um whatever
accumulates during the winter in the way of snow pile draining, I presume, into
that same area. Is there it looks to me like the OECP hasn't accommodated for
that in this type of situation. Maybe it'll have to be revised down the road,
but is there any way we can accommodate any of that? Because what we're doing
now is concentrating a flow into one area that would have traditionally gone
over a wide area and dispersed. So, I'm just curious to know if there's any
accommodation for that. So, I'm going to jump in and say that I I think we're
really waiting into the detailed discussions that are still underway
between the engineering and environmental experts on the other
applications that are before council in terms of the zoning application and in
terms of the site plan agreement uh with the district and township staff. And
what I will very clearly state is that so far
this proposed overland storm flow has not triggered any significant concerns
from those township peerreview experts. However, there are still some issues
with it, but they actually have to do more with the uh diameter of the storm
water pipe that empties into this flow, not the interceptor um that is meant to
sort materials. And in some respects, this overland flow
moves any storm water away from the type one
fish habitat. Um, but what I will say is that the turtle habitat is still in some
question and so that is being looked at. But as I say, I think those details are
being properly attended to through cycling.
» Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thanks uh um Jeff. Just to further add to that, and
of course, this is um water coming off the district road. Um, as some members
of council might know, the district, um, Department of Environment and Public
Works, um, and their director, James Steele, is very much part of that
working group that that deals and is looking at salt and our discussions with
district staff, very cognizant of that salt issue. So, that's top of mind in
the consideration of this. >> Could I just maybe add one final thing
if I may? Um, I agree with everything that's been said and and the salt piece
is a bit beyond the purview, but just the final comment is that under the
current scenario and historic scenario, there's no evidence that what's there
now would meet ministry requirements or technical requirements, but the
post-development situation that's proposed would all be designed to meet
Ministry of the Environment requirements. So um there's things like
oil and grit separators being proposed for the parking area and whatnot. So the
clear message is that postdevelopment all ministry of environment requirements
would be met and but we don't know the situation currently.
» Thanks guys. >> Very good.
» Any other uh questions or comments from the committee? Uh seeing none I will
read the resolution that is moved uh by member Schmidt seconded by member
Jarvis. Be it resolved that the committee of adjustment of the township
of Georgia Bay grants provisional approval to consent application B26-14
for an easement across parts of land municipally known as 135 Port 7 Road
North for storm water uh overland flow group required for 48
unit residential development on adjacent lands municipally known as 117
uh Port 7 Road North and the decision is subject to the following conditions.
One, that a draft reference plan be completed by an Ontario land surveyor
and a digital copy submitted to the secretary treasurer of the committee of
adjustment for confirmation by township planning staff that it is in substantial
conformity with the consent sketch attached to the planning services report
2026-159 regarding application B26-14
and two that a copy of the deposited reference plan be provided to
the secretary treasur. Item three has been discussed uh and a lot of
clarification from both the agent and the planner. So I won't uh read that uh
portion again.
We missing a page.
» Technical difficulty please indulge
there. It's the night shift thing you can't
count on. >> I have the rest of
» No, you go ahead. Uh, >> and that [clears throat] the owner
provide property tax certificate or correspondence from the township
financial services indicating that all property taxes have been paid up to date
with respect to the subject uh or the property subject to this decision. And
that a draft transfer be prepared by solicitor and submitted to the secretary
treasurer in preparation for the creation of the certificate of official
describing the easement and that all fees and dispersements legal engineering
planning if any incurred by the township with respect to the application or the
agreements required as conditions of the decision be paid by the owner.
» Thank you very much. Um all those in in favor [clears throat]
uh please indicate by raising your hand. Thank you. The motion is carried and the
application is approved.
Our next application is a minor variance application
number A26-22 for 15 Silver Sands Lake Road. to the
planner, please. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um,
Russell's going to be doing the presentation, but I just wanted to kind
of make a little introduction to this one. As you know, this application was
heard in July, um, July 17th, uh, by the committee of adjustment and was
deferred. It was deferred so the committee of adjustment could obtain
additional information and get some clarification on things. Um, there was
no circulation recirculation required as um, nothing has changed in the
application. The only reason it was deferred was so the committee members
could receive additional information. So I just wanted to clarify that.
» Thank you for that. >> Thank you and through the chair. As you
may recall the subject lands are zone C3 highway commercial exception zone 10 are
located approximately 1 kilometers to the south of MTR have a lot lot area of
8.27 27 acres, a frontage of 185 meters on Silver Sands Lake Road, and an
exterior side yard frontage of 182.9 meters on Lake Joseph Road.
The purpose and effect of this minor variance is to seek relief from the
zoning bylaw to A facilitate the placement of two additional storage
propane tanks, b facilitate the placement of a diesel fuel dispenser,
and C to legalize two existing sheds. The bulk storage propane tanks would
result in an exterior sideyard set back of 27 meters whereas 30 meters is
required. The diesel fuel dispenser would result in an exterior sideyard set
back of 3 meters whereas 5 meters is required. And the legalization of the
existing sheds would result in exterior sideyard setbacks of 0.55 and 0.85
meters whereas 5 meters are required.
The committee responded with several fire and public safety concerns
regarding planning staff's analysis uh of the requested variances during this
July 17th hearing. The application was deferred pending receipt and review of
the risk assessment plan respecting the proposed bulk propane storage tanks and
diesel fuel dispenser and receipt of the comments from the township of Georgia
Bay Fire Department uh regarding the proposed development and any associated
fire and public safety considerations. The updated uh risk and safety
management pan plan respecting the proposed tanks and dispenser was
provided and approved by fire chief Chad Dael on July 20th, 2026. This approved
plan was received from the fire department with no additional fire
safety or fire protection concerns resulting from the proposed
developments. The committee also inquired as to whether an increased f
fireball radius or risk contours resulted from the proposed developments.
The provided risk and safety management plan shows that the fireball radius is
unchanged and that the calculated risk contours would expand by approximately
180 meters. This expanded contour includes approximately 250 to 300 square
meters of the corner of one new property. Though the property's
permitted uses do not conflict with the unsuitable uses of the plan barring
childcare facilities. No correspondence has been received from this owner
regarding the proposed variances and the current 1.6 six kilometer evacuation
distance remains unchanged. Uh member Revette's concerns regarding
the approved license capacity and missing contact information for the
occupants of the adjacent properties were also addressed. Uh Patrick
Kirkwood, uh agent and professional engineer, clarified that there are no
licensing requirements for the 1,350 US water gallon tanks as they are for
the heating and standby generator and not part of the propane filling plant
license. Um he also clarified that there are no policies that require uh adjacent
owner contact information as this changes over time and is handled
appropriately by the emergency services in the result of an emergency.
In summary, the committee has several options regarding the proposed
development. The application can be approved, the application can be denied
or the application can be deferred with reasons and identification of the
additional information required for the committee to come to a decision.
Planning staff are recommending approval of the variance as requested and are of
the opinion that the committee's questions and concerns have been
addressed. Thank you. >> Thank you. Uh is the applicant or their
agent present and do they wish to address the committee on this topic?
» Please please step forward and identify yourself
uh with name and address please for the record.
» Uh I'm James Callo. I live at 1995 Oyer Circle in Sever.
» Thank you. >> Patrick Kirkwood live at 110 Mckran Lane
in Gravenhurst. >> Thank you very much. Uh well, we'll ask
you to remain in case there are some questions. Uh is there any member of the
public present that wishes to address the committee on this application? Okay,
seeing none, I'll close the public portion and bring the application before
the committee for any questions or comments.
Okay, we see no questions or comments and I think that's due to the fact that
we spent a lot of time going through any concerns at our previous meeting and uh
thank you very much to the planning department for addressing all of those.
So, we're uh we're now better informed than we were last month. Thank you. Uh
with that, I will read the resolution is moved by member Predco and seconded by
member Schmidt. Be it resolved that the township of Georgia Bay committee of
adjustment approves bind variance application A26-22
to zoning bylaw 2014-75 as amended for 15 Silver Sands Lake Road to facilitate
the placement of two bulk propane storage tanks, one diesel fuel dispenser
and the legalization of two sheds as described below. uh one an exterior
sideyard setback of the bulk storage tanks of 27 m whereas C310 bylaw
2015-12.4 permits a minimum of 30 m. Two, an
exterior sideyard setback for the diesel fuel pump of 3 meters whereas section
10.3 permits a minimum of 5 meters. three external exterior sideyard
setbacks of 0 55 meters for the easterly shed and a 0.85 meters for the westerly
shed whereas section 10.3 permits a minimum of 5 meters. The above not
approval is subject to the following conditions. One that the owner provide a
property tax certificate or correspondence from township financial
services indicating that all property taxes been paid up to date with respect
to the property that is subject to this decision. Two, that the proposed bulk
storage uh tanks and diesel fuel dispenser be substantially and
proportionately in conformity with the dimensions as set on the application and
site plan submitted and approved by the committee. And three, that the
appropriate zoning certificate of building permit be obtained within three
years from the date of decision from the township only after the committee's
decision becomes final and binding. All those in favor, please indicate by
raising your hand. Thank you. The motion is carried and the
application is approved. Thank you everyone.
Our next minor variance application is A26-25
for 259 Haskit Drive. To the planner, please.
That was a compliment. I think
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The subject property no municipal has 259 Haskit
Drive is located in within the 6 mile lake waterfront community boundary. The
property has a lot frontage on 6mile lake of 39 m and is comprised of 3,32.63
square meters. The shoreline is predominantly maintained in a natural
state with mature trees and vegetation providing an effective buffer from the
lake. A pre-application was completed on June
9th, 2026 for the construction of a detached garage on the subject lands. It
was determined that in order to develop the property further, a minor variance
would be required for a reduction in the minimum interior sideyard setback and an
increase in the maximum lot coverage within 60 meters of the high water mark
as well as the overall lot coverage. A minor variance application was received
by the township on June 18th, 2026 and was deemed complete.
The additional proposed development on the property is the construction of a
62.80 square meter detached garage. The detached garage is proposed to be a
one-story in height and will meet the maximum height permitted as per section
4.1.11 of the zoning bylaw as well as the
maximum ground floor area. As a recommended condition of approval, staff
did recommend site plan approval in the report. How after however after sorry
however upon further investigation it can be noted that site plan approval is
not required and therefore the proposed condition number two as noted in the
recommended resolution is not necessary. The property is within the six mile lake
waterfront community boundary. The b the character of the six mile lake
waterfront community is of a residential community composed of district distinct
neighborhoods focused on the various basins of the lake. It consists of many
island and mainland uses with a variety of access needs. This character shall be
maintained and enhanced through careful land use planning. Legally existing uses
which consist of residential uses, existing marinas, public access,
launching areas, and large areas of crown land are permitted. Limited new
single detached residential uses are permitted as per the policies of this
official plan. the existing land use as well as the proposed detach detached
garage would be recognized as a permitted use within the waterfront
community. The preferred location of the proposed
garage is to be 1.5 m from the interior sideyard due to the rock outcrop that is
on the opposite side of the driveway. The owners did not want to blast in
order to accommodate the garage at the required setback. There is still
adequate room for cars to get past the garage and carry on to the main cottage
location which is significantly sloped towards the lake.
The committee has options in regards to this application. They can approve the
application as recommended by planning staff, deny the application or defer the
application with reasons identifying the additional information or actions that
the committee of adjustment considers necessary to make a decision. staff are
supportive of the variance request subject to the recommended conditions
being included in an approved decision and the owner fulfilling the
requirements of the conditions implemented. Thank you.
» Thank you very much madam secretaries have been correspondents in this
application. >> One letter was received from Kelly
Nicholson, chief building official stating that building permits will be
required and one letter of support was received from Wayne Zronic.
Uh is the agent present and do they wish to identify themselves uh the committee?
» Good morning committee. Uh my name is Victoria Hoffman from Flow Drawings and
Design 3 Violet Drive. Um this application today is for a detached
garage. Um the reduced setback as Deb explained is because of the topography
of the property. They were kind of working with the rock that's on the
other side of the property. Um we did receive a letter of support from the
neighboring property that we're getting we're encroaching on. Um the purpose of
the garage is just to basically put he has some stuff on the property now that
he would like to store indoors. Um that includes tractor, snowb blower, boat
trailer. Um he's looking for some secure storage for those items. Um he also has
a seat can on the property that he would like to move that stuff out of and keep
in an actual garage. It's a modest size garage. Um we also this morning we
received a letter from the other neighboring property as well which Deb
has so there was support on both sides. Um property owner is here behind me Carl
Isis. Um but we're just here to answer any questions if you have any.
» Okay. Thank you very much. Is there any member of the public that wishes to
address the committee on this application? Okay, seeing none, I'll
close the public portion of the application and bring the matter before
the committee for any questions or comments.
And uh we'll begin with member Matthews. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's hard to beat
Mr. Jarus today. He must slowly um Victoria, I'm just curious. A lot of
times people come to us for um garages that are about twice as big as this.
» Yeah. [laughter] >> Um I just wondered if that has been a
consideration at all because if you're storing stuff, you can never really have
enough storage in that price, right? >> Yeah. We had we had talked about it, but
they just wanted this was the size they wanted and we didn't we didn't really
push forward. >> That's great.
» [snorts] >> Uh, member Smith,
» I think it's evident by the room here there's support on this application, but
I did have the opportunity to see the property from the water and from the
from the landside and this is a logical spot for it to sit with the twist in the
lane with the rock and always nice to see a letter of support from a
neighboring property that this gets close to. So, thank you.
» Okay, [clears throat] thank you. If there are no more questions, I'll read
the resolution. It is moved by member Hazelton, separate uh seconded by member
Matthews. Be it resolved that the township of Georgia Bay committee of
adjustment approves minor variance application A26-25
to zoning bylaw 2014-75 for 259 Haskitz Drive to seek relief
from the zoning bylaw to facilitate the construction of a 62.8
square meter NTA garage as described below.
And uh we've seen that description uh based on the following conditions. Uh
one that the owner provide a property tax certificate or correspondence from
township financial services indicating that all property taxes have been paid
up to date with respect to the property that is subject to this decision. Two,
that the proposed detached garage is substantially in proportionate in
conformity with the dimensions as set of the application and sketches submitted
and approved by the committee. Three, that a qualified professional verify by
pinning the foundation ball and verifying in writing or bor survey uh
report uh prior to the pouring of the footings and no uh footings the
foundation that the detach is no closer than 1.5
m from the northern northerly uh interior line. and four that the
appropriate zoning certificate of building permit be obtained within three
years from the date of decision from the township only after the committee's
decision becomes final and binding. All those in favor of approval, please
indicate by raising your hand. Thank you. The motion is carried and the
application is approved.
Our next application is A26-26 for 39 Railway Street to the planner,
please.
» Thank you. And through the chair, the subject lands are zoned residential type
4 are located in Mtier, have a lot area of 1421.42
42 square meters or approximately 0.35 acres, a frontage of 31.09 meters on
Railway Street, and an exterior sideyard frontage of 45.67 meters on Park Drive.
The property is currently developed with a duplex dwelling and no other accessory
structures.
The purpose and effect of this minor variance is to seek relief from the
zoning bylaw to facilitate the construction of a detached garage with a
floor area of 133.6 m whereas 112 m is permitted by
section 411D and a front yard setback of 4 meters
whereas 7.5 m is required by section 411f.
The subject property is designated urban center in both the district of Mskoka
and township of Georgian Bay official plans. The proposed development conforms
to the policies of this designation as it constitutes a permitted accessory use
that is secondary to the existing residential dwelling which will remain
the primary use of the property. Um the applicant has indicated that the garage
um alongside the storage of vehicles and household items will be used to
facilitate the um restoration of the dwelling at some point in the future.
Uh purposes and intents of maintaining the front yard setback include
maintaining clear sight lines to maintain public uh and road safety,
accommodating utilities and associated maintenance, providing space for
drainage and infiltration, maintaining privacy and green uh greenery and
ensuring adequate parking is provided. Um despite the reduced uh front yard
setback, an additional 10 meter buffer exists between the edge of the traveled
road and the property boundary. This buffer contains the hydro and telephone
utilities and ensures a clear sight line toward the intersection of park drive
and railway street. Um it also retains adequate space for um snow removal and
road maintenance. Um the lands across from the subject lands are shielded by a
rock berm uh thereby screening it from the development. Um and the garage is
positioned with this lesser setback to retain existing mature uh cedar trees
and a rock outcropping on the property uh which also would likely uh retain uh
screening from the adjacent property. While the garage can be realistically
expected to accommodate some of the legal uh parking spaces due to its size
but single uh road-facing vehicle door, the remainder of the two required spaces
cannot be legally accommodated by the lesser front yard setback in front of
the garage. Um, however, because the duplex dwelling is currently unoccupied
and the subject lands are large enough to accommodate the required four parking
spaces in a variety of future uh configurations, planning staff do not
believe that it is currently necessary to determine the exact location of these
parking spaces as part of this minor variance application.
The lesser front yard setback of the detach garage also maintains the
character of the neighborhood as detached garages on several surrounding
properties uh are also positioned in the front yard with similar width.
Uh purposes and intents of the maximum garage floor area include ensuring
accessory structures remain subordinate to the um pre uh principal dwelling,
preventing overdevelopment and minimizing visual impacts on the
surrounding properties. The existing dwelling would remain prominent in scale
as it is a wide two-story duplex dwelling and the proposed detached
garages designed to be narrow yet deep. These subject lands are also large
relative to the surrounding lots within the MTI urban center with a proposed lot
coverage of 21.95% whereas 30% is permitted as covered
previously. Privacy and access to sunlight from the surrounding properties
would be largely maintained as the garage has been positioned to retain
existing vegetation in the setback. Thus, planning staff are of the opinion
that the proposed detached garage is minor in nature, appropriate and
desirable for the use of the land, and maintains the general intent and purpose
of the zoning bylaw and official plans.
In summary, the committee has several options regarding the proposed
development. The application can be approved, the application can
[clears throat] be denied, or the application can be deferred with reasons
and identification of the additional information required to come to a
decision. For the reasons outlined, planning staff are supportive of the
variances requested subject to recommended conditions, including that a
driveway entrance permit is obtained for access to the garage. That concludes the
presentation. Thank you. >> Thank you very much,
Madam Secretary. There have been correspondence in this application.
» One letter was received from Kelly Nicholson, chief building official,
suiting that building permits will be required. And one letter was received
from Canadian Pacific Kansas City Railway Company noting that residential
development within 500 meters of its rail corridor should account for all
rail uh related safety, noise, vibration, drainage and access
considerations associated with rail operations.
» Thank you very much. Is the applicant present or there would you care to
address the committee and add any uh information to what the planners
provided? Nothing to add. I'll uh let's start by
getting your name and address, please. >> My name is Kim Bradshaw and I live at 14
Park Drive, just adjacent to 39 Railway. >> Okay, thank you very much. Uh is there
any member of the public that's present that wishes to address the committee on
this application? Okay, seeing none, I'll uh close the
public portion, bring the application before the committee for any questions
or comments. And
I was about to say seeing none and then this hand went up.
» Member Jarvis, >> I'm just curious. I I realized that
there's not an issue with this, but what is what's the sideyard setback on this?
I I missed I missed the number. So it's in the report. I missed it.
» Uh 3 meters. >> Sorry.
» 3 meters. >> Three meters to the sideyard. That was
one like one drop. Okay. I appreciate that. Thank you. Okay,
thank you. Uh, if there are no further questions, I will read the resolution.
Is moved by member Matthew, seconded by member Jarvis. Be it resolved that the
township of Georgia Bay community of adjustment approves mine variance
application A26-26 to zoning bylaw 2014-75
as amended for 39 railway road to facilitate the construction of a
detached garage as described below. one a floor area of 133.59
square meters whereas 112 square meters are permitted and a front yard setback
of 4 meters whereas 7.5 m is required. Uh the above noted approvals are subject
to the following conditions. One that the owner provide a property tax
certificate or correspondence from township financial services indicating
that all property taxes been paid up to date with respect to the property that
is subject to this decision. Two, that the proposed detached garage is
substantially and proportionately in conformity with the dimensions as set
out on the application and sketches submitted and approved by the committee.
And three, that the owner obtain a driveway entrance permit for garage
access. And four, that an approved [clears throat] zoning bylaw certificate
uh and building permit be obtained within three years from the date of
decision from the township only after the committee's decision becomes final
and binding. All those in favor, please indicate by raising your hand.
Thank you. The motion is carried and the application is approved.
» Our next application is minor variance A26-27
for 368 Island 540 in Georgian Bay. To the planner, please.
Thank you and through your chair. The subject property is located on
present island and has an area of 0.45 acres with a frontage of 38.9 meters
onto Georgian Bay. A detached dwelling and a dot currently occupy the lands.
Present Island is characterized as having pockets of dench vegetation,
beachfront shoreline, and dwellings and accessory buildings in part being
visible from the water. The purpose and effect of the
application is to seek relief from the zoning bylaw to facilitate the
construction of a covered deck at the front wall of the existing dwelling
encroaching into the required front yard setback of 20 m. Section 4.13 of the
zoning bylaw permits a maximum front yard encroachment of 2 meters for
porches or screen porches, whereas an encroachment of 4.4 meters is proposed.
The subject proposal consists of a cover deck addition to the existing
residential use and does not introduce a new land use, increase residential
density or alter the establishment established pardon function of the
property. Rather, it is a modest improvement to the existing dwelling and
enhances the usability of outdoor amenity space while maintaining the
property's residential character. Given the limited scale of the proposal, its
compatibility with surrounding development, and the maintenance of the
existing residential use and waterprint character of the property, staff will
find the prop that the proposed covered deck represents a desirable and
appropriate development. Subject property is designated
waterfront and is not located with any coastal or inland waterfront communities
within the township's official plan. The waterfront designation recognizes
residential uses and accessory buildings and structures as permitted uses. The
proposed development is compatible with the existing pattern of residential
development along Georgian Bay and specifically on present island. The
waterfront landscape is characterized primarily by dwellings visible from the
water together with a variety of shoreline structures and accessory
buildings located within the sides or rear yards. The front facade of the
dwelling will remain visible to the water although it will be continued to
be partially screened and framed by vegetation present on the subject lands.
The intent of limiting deck encroachments into the front yard on
waterfront lots is to ensure that the development remains appropriately set
back from the shoreline, maintains a visual character of the waterfront, and
preserves a balance between natural and built form. In this regard, the proposed
covered deck continues to respect the overall intent of the zoning provision.
While the deck will be covered, the proposed proposal does not overall
increase the width or height of the dwelling and therefore does not
materially alter the scale, massing or vis visual prominence of the building.
As a result, the development does not contribute to a noticeable
intensification of built form within the front yard. As shown on screen, the
proposed development includes the removal of the existing open deck at the
front of the dwelling, which currently encroaches 3.8 8 m into the front yard
and the construction of the new covered deck which will only increase 0.6 m
encroachment into the required front yard.
The committee can either approve or deny the variance being requested. The
committee may also defer the application to a later date if additional
information is required to come to a decision. Planning staff have completed
a detailed analysis of the variance of the zoning bylaw being requested and are
recommending approval subject to conditions. Thank you.
» Thank you. Have we had correspondence in this application?
» One letter was received from Kaylee Nicholson, chief building official,
stating that she has concerns regarding the proposed location of the west deck
due to the septic proximity. >> Thank you. Is the applicant present and
do they wish to address the committee on this application?
Hi [laughter] Are you still at Violet Drive?
» I am. Have it moved. >> You still Victoria Hoffman?
» Yes, I am. >> Very good.
» Answered all the questions. >> Um,
sorry. So, yes, this application, the existing structure has a setback of 15.8
m, um, which is the open deck foundation and a retaining wall. What we're trying
to do is work off of that, but cover the new deck. Um the new deck will be
squared off with the building whereas the old one kind of jutted in from the
corners a little bit which is what brings us to the slightly reduced um set
front setback from 15.8 to 15.6 m. Um the roof line will be continuous. It'll
be a straight gable out. So from the water the idea is that it's going to
look very similar. Um and basically just covering a space that he already has.
Um, we did look into the septic locations and we do meet all the
building code requirements and Kaylee did acknowledge that in an email that
came after her comments. She's not here but
here to answer any questions. The property owner is also in the room. Mark
Wagner at the back there, but we're just here to answer. Oh, is here.
» Okay. >> Yeah.
» Um, we have a hand up. Oh, from Kaylee Nicholson, our chief
building official. Did you have a wish to make a comment, Kaylee? Go ahead.
» You bet. Uh through you, chair. I just wanted to make note that uh my comments
had been updated. We did uh um go through and receive a new site plan from
Victoria and uh we no longer have concerns.
» Okay, thank you very much for that clarification. Is there any member of
the public present that wishes to address the committee on this
application? Okay, seeing none, I will close the public portion, bring the
application before the committee for questions or comments.
And seeing none, I will read the resolution. Uh, be it
resolved that the Township of Georgian Bay Committee of Adjustment approves
binder variance application A26-27 to zoning B 2014-75 as amended for 368
Island 540 Georgia Bay to facilitate the construction of a covered deck on the
front wall of an existing drawing as described below. Uh, one an encroachment
of 4.4 meters into the required front yard setback whereas a maximum
encroachment of 2 meters is permitted. The above noted approvals are subject to
the following conditions. One, that the owner provide a property tax certificate
or correspondence from township financial services indicating that all
property taxes have been paid up to date with respect to the property that is
subject to this decision. Two, that the proposed covered deck be
substantially in proportionately in conformity with the dimensions as set
out on the application and sketches submitted and approved by the committee.
and three, that the appropriate zoning certificate building permit be obtained
within three years from the date of decision from the township only after
the committee's decision becomes final and binding. All those in favor, please
indicate by raising your hand. Thank you. The motion is carried and the
application is approved.
Our next application is A26-28
for 98 Driftwood Lane. To the planner, please.
» Thank you, Mr. Chair. The subject property known as known
municipally as 98 Driftwood Lane is located within the Six Mile Lake
waterfront community boundary. The property has a lot frontage on six mile
lake approximately 56 meters and is comprised of 0.34 hectares. It is
identified as a budding and narrow water body with ingress and egress to the
property crossing property owned by the Ministry of Natural Resources from
Driftwood Lane. The property has a fairly natural short natural has a
fairly natural shoreline with some mature trees which will be retained.
The current owners of the property took possession of the lot in 2024. An
application for a minor variance was received by the township on July 10th,
2026 and deemed complete. At the present time, there is a detached dwelling on
the property that was constructed in 1956.
According to the site plan submitted, there's also an existing sleeping cabin,
detached garage, and a carport that is not recognized by EMPAC. The owners wish
to demolish the existing dwelling and construct a new dwelling with a walkout
basement, but will not be utilizing the non-conforming footprint for the
existing dwelling. The property, as stated, is within the Six Mile Lake
waterfront community. The township does have a building permit records on the
property for a new septic system in 2020, and a detached garage and a dock
in 2025. The new structure is to be moved back
further on the property, but will not meet the minimum high watermark setback,
maximum lot coverage, maximum gross floor area permitted, as well as the
maximum width permitted for a dwelling. The owners wish to demolish the existing
dwelling and construct a larger new dwelling further away from the high
water mark. The new dwelling will be 224.2
square meters which includes an attached deck. No additional work is to take
place on the shoreline of the property. As the lot is less than 4,000 square
meters in size, there is a maximum gross floor area and maximum width of a
dwelling in the sixmile lake waterfront community. A minor variance is required
as the size of the new dwelling will be 34.2 2 square meters larger than
permitted in the SR6 zone. The width will be 6.49 m wider than permitted and
an increase in the maximum lot coverage and a reduction in the minimum high
water mark setback. There was an error in the report under [clears throat] the
proposal heading indicating that the dwelling would be 34% larger where it
should have been 34.2 square meters larger than the permitted gross floor
area at 190 square meters. Comments were received by the chief building official
who has expressed concerns regarding the feasibility of installing a new sewage
system and the potential constraints including the minimum setback to the
high water mark as well as required clearance clearances from existing hydro
lines. The property as stated is within the six mile lake waterfront community
and as committee is aware that there is a specific character that is permitted
and looked at in the six mile lake waterfront community. the existing land
use as well as the demolition of the existing dwelling and construction of a
new detached dwelling would be recognized as a permitted use within
this waterfront community.
As you can see in the pictures, there are some areas on the property upon
visiting it that um has started to erode on the shoreline here. has been pointed
out and this is the location where the new dwelling is to be back in here and
the existing cottage is only 5 mters from the high water mark as you can see
which we're going to be moving back. The lands within 15 meters of the high
watermark on all lots in any shoreline residential zone or shoreline
residential island zone shall be maintained in a natural state with this
area being considered the natural shoreline area. A shoreline activity
area shall be permitted within the natural state shoreline area to provide
access to the shoreline and locations for land-based shoreline accessory
buildings and structures. In the SR6 zone, the shoreline activity area shall
be a maximum of 25% of the natural state shoreline area and shall have a maximum
width of 25% of the shoreline length at any point within 15 meters of the high
water mark. As the existing dwelling is being demolished and the new dwelling is
being located farther away from the high water mark, there'll be ample area to
plant native vegetation and better the natural state shoreline area existing.
Staff are recommending a condition that an area of approximately 34 square
meters of additional native plantings be incorporated into the development plan.
This is to be located within 15 meters of the shoreline and has been calculated
based on the difference in the increase in the gross floor area being sought. A
landscape plan will be required to be incorporated into the site plan
agreement which can be prepared by the applicant and based on identified native
plants to this area. Staff are supportive of the variance
request subject to the recommended conditions being included in an approved
decision and the owner fulfilling the requirements of the conditions
implemented. The committee adjustment members do have options. They can
approve the application as recommended by planning staff, deny the application
or defer the application with re reasons, identifying the additional
information or actions that the committee of adjustment considers
necessary to make a decision. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. Has there been
correspondence on this application? One letter was received from Kelly
Nicholson, chief building official, stating that building permits will be
required and only issued where the sewage system and dwelling can be built
in compliance with the Ontario building code.
» Thank you. Is the applicant present and do they wish to address the committee on
this application?
» Please uh turn on the mic and give us your name, address, please. It's Rob
Carzwell at 130 Heath Valley Trail on Port 7.
» Thank you. And uh did you have anything to add to what the planner had provided
so far? >> No.
» Okay. Then uh please hang in there in case there are questions from the uh
committee. Is there any member of the public that's present that wishes to
address the committee on this application? Okay. Seeing none, I'll
close the public portion and bring the application before the committee for any
questions or comments. And let's begin with member Predco.
» Thank you. And through you, chair. Um just two questions on the um the zoning
bylaw restrictions and and then and the um proposals. Um the maximum GFA 190 m
squared. That's the the actual maximum amount. It's not the per percentage
increase allowed. Okay. So, they're going over the maximum. And then in
terms of the maximum width, the cottage is on a bit of an angle from the
shoreline. So that is to the detriment of this calculation. Is that correct? So
does it include the deck as well? So do we know if the what the I I'd have to
look at the the report again in terms of the width of the the dwelling
square on is it is it closer to where we need it to be?
And maybe the Asian can answer that.
» Okay. Okay. I mean, I I guess the only other concerns would be then if you
can't find a a suitable place for septic, but that's a condition on the
the report, so I'm fine with that. Okay, that's all. Thank you. Thank you. Member
Jarvis, do you have a question? >> Yes. Thank you, Susan. To you, chair,
quickly, um to the planner. Um I know we're rebuilding here, but if this was a
totally new build, what would be the permitted size?
» Is that the one >> 190
need that clarification? Thanks. >> Good. Thank you. Uh member Smith,
» thank you through uh chair. um on this on this property. Uh and I and I correct
me, but I thought the GFA numbers were going away. That hasn't happened yet.
Okay. But here's an example of a property that is uh soon as you get
below one acre, you drop from 275. The arbit arbitrary numbers goes from 275
right down to 190. This property is currently sitting at 085 of an acre. So,
we're like this much from what 275 would be permitted. And I do believe and I did
do a site visit again both sides of this property. I spoke to the neighboring
property to the east um west of Blooms. They have no issue. They didn't they're
pretty quiet people. They wouldn't do a letter normally. Um
but I I think because of the way it's situated on the property, again, that is
the width. same thing we ran into at the Stokes property on um um near the fish
sanctuary. So, um I think this does fit as an improvement and it will be setting
the property back significantly because it is right on the shoreline now. Um so,
that's my my comments. Thank you. >> Any further uh questions or comments?
Uh seeing none, I will uh read the resolution.
It is moved by member Matthews and seconded by member Schmidt. Be it
resolved that the Township of Georgia Bay Committee of Adjustment approves
minor variance application A26-28 to zoning bylaw 2014-75
for 98 Driftwood Lane to seek relief from the zoning bylaw to facilitate the
construction of a 224.2 2 square meter detached dwelling as
described in uh detail in the application and on the resolution
uh subject to the following conditions. One, that the owner provide a property
tax certificate or correspondence from township financial services indicating
that all property taxes have been paid up to date with respect to the property
that is subject to this decision. two, that the proposed detached dwelling is
substantially and proportionately in conformity with the dimensions as set
out on the application and sketches submitted and approved by the committee.
And three, that the applica applicant uh be required to submit a landscape plan
providing uh the renaturalization of 34 square
meters area within 15 meters of high water mark to be included in a site plan
agreement. and four, that the applicant be required to submit an erosion and
sediment control plan to be included in a site plan agreement. Five, that the
applicant apply for and obtain site plan approval from the township of Georgia
Bay, including if required, the execution and registration of a site
plan agreement against the title of the lands. And six, that a qualified
professional verify by pitting the foundation wall and verifying in writing
or by way of a survey. uh prior to the pouring of the footing that no or and
[clears throat] if no footing the foundation that the attached dwelling is
no closer than 13 meters from the high water mark. And seven, that the
appropriate zoning certificate and building permit be obtained within 3
years from the date of decision from the township only after the committee's
decision becomes final and binding. All those in favor, please indicate by
raising your hand. Thank you. The motion is carried and the
application is approved.
Thank you, sir. And u our next minor variance application is A26-29
for 192 wild rice trail to the planner, please.
Thank you. And through you, chair. The subject property has an area of 2.81
acres with a frontage of 61.8 m onto SixMile Lake. A detached dwelling,
detached garage, dryland boat house, and two docks currently occupy the lands.
The majority of the property is maintained in its natural state with
areas of clearing occurring for the driveway, septic system, and immediate
surrounding area of the existing and proposed development of the lands. The
existing dwelling has a gross floor area of 70.6 square meters and maintains all
required yard setbacks. The purpose and effect of the
application is to seek relief from the zoning bylaw to facilitate the
construction of a dwelling addition. The following variances are required to
facilitate the construction of the addition. an increase in lot coverage to
9.94% whereas section 6.3 table 6.2 permits a maximum lot coverage of 8%. An
increase in dwelling gross floor area to 293.57
m whereas section 6.3B permits a maximum gross floor area of
275 m and an increase in dwelling width to 19.9 m where section 6.3C
permits a maximum width of 15.45 four or five meters.
Lock coverage limitations within the shoreline residential zones are intended
to achieve an appropriate balance between natural features and built form,
prevent overdevelopment, protect natural heritage resources, and maintain the low
density character of the waterfront designation.
In this case, the proposed dwelling expansion will be largely screened from
the shoreline by mature vegetation located within both the front and side
yards of the subject property and adjacent lands. In addition, the
existing detached garage, which contributes significantly to the
property's current lot coverage, is not visible from the shoreline due to
extensive vegetation buffering and the elevation difference between the
shoreline and the plateau on which the structure is situated. The docks in the
dryland boat house are the only three structures located within the 30 meter
frontyard setback. The subject property is located within
the six mile lake inland waterfront community. Variances to the established
maximum size and/or width of a dwelling may be considered where the applicant
provides evidence satisfactory to the township that the dwelling will maintain
and enhance the natural form of the area. The visual impact of the dwelling
will not be significant and is in accordance with all other applicable
policies of the plan. While the proposed redevelopment will result in in an
increase to dwelling facade, the existing natural form of the property
will be retained given the retention of the front yard setback in its natural
state. As a result, the proposed development will continue to blend with
the natural shoreline landscape and maintain the aesthetic integrity and the
established character of the community. As illustrated by the site photo
displayed, the docks and dryland boat house continue to represent the most
visually prominent forms of development when viewed from the lake.
The subject property is designated waterfront within the townships and
district's official plans. The waterfront designation recognizes
residential development, accessory uses, and structures included shore related
uses as permitted uses. The development permitted should enhance and protect
natural heritage qualities and shall be compatible with the existing land uses
in the area having regard for aesthetic quality. Although relief is required for
maximum lot coverage, dwelling gross floor area and dwelling width
provisions, the dwell development remains appropriate in the context of
the surrounding development patterns and physical characteristics. The proposed
dwelling addition can be accommodated on the property while maintaining the
minimum front yard setback without the removal of significant natural
vegetation. The committee can either deny or approve
any of the variances being requested. The committee may also defer the
application to a later date if additional information is required to
come to a decision. Planning staff have completed a detailed analysis of the
variances to the zoning bylaw being requested and are recommending approval
subject to conditions. Thank you. >> Thank you for that. Uh madam secretary,
there have been correspondence in this application. One letter was received
from Kelly Nicholson, chief building official, stating that building permits
will be required and recommending a condition is imposed for occupancy or
final inspection to be completed prior to the issuance of a zoning certificate.
And five letters of support were received from Jack and Marne Petri,
Robert and Brenda Pritchard, Mike and Wendy Bradley, Patty and Dave Elsie, and
Ted and Alen Parkinson. >> Thank you. Uh, is the applicant or their
agent present? And do they wish to address the committee?
Are you still Victoria Hoffman flow controls
three Violet Drive board sever? >> Yeah.
» So >> yeah, it's me.
» And did you have anything to add to the planner comments?
» Yeah, I mean Andrew presented it. Great. As always, um we're asking for an
additional lot coverage of a little under 2% 1.94. We are going over the six
mile GFA cap at by 18 and a half square meters and then our width is increasing
um to 19.9 or 15.4 is allowed. Um the property owners moved up here
permanently May 2025. Um the existing one-bedroom cottage just isn't cutting
it for them. Um they're also preparing for family growth and hopefully
grandkids. Um they need more storage within the home. Um and
they want to stop paying for storage units in Wabashene. Um throughout this
design, aging in place was kept in mind. The screen porch was a really big
priority as well as adequate mechanical because now that they're living there
full-time, um they just need to kind of have a space where they can update those
things. the mechanical was the reason that our gross
floor area popped over what we were allowed. Um, and the width increased
because we expanded in the three sides. We couldn't expand to the back because
of the septic system and the four and a half meters that the width went over is
basically the mscopa room. Um, Gary Lions is here to answer any questions as
well, but again here to here to answer. >> Thank you very much. Is there any member
of the public uh present or online that wishes to address the committee on this
application? Okay, seeing none, I'll close the public
portion, bring the application uh before the committee uh for any questions or
comments. And I just had one quick question at the beginning when we're
talking about um a closedin portion of the dwelling. Is it the roof or the
screening or both that adds to the GFA? whereas an open deck would not.
» It would be any area under a roof overhang of 1.2 meters or greater from
the exterior wall. >> So screening is
» screening it in or whether it be open for an open deck, it's still included in
gross floor area. >> Okay. So just to be clear that the
screening doesn't by itself obviously you wouldn't screen it if you didn't
have a roof. So, uh, well, maybe some people would, but you
had a question, members. >> I'm not going to go down the rabbit hole
of GFA. Um, because literally as soon as you have a the slightest bit of a porch
and any rules of real estate, which I participate in, it's not included in
square footage. So, but I did because I can't help myself. Um, so I'm gonna
climb back out of that rabbit hole through chair. Oh, yes it is. I just
have I'm just I'm just speaking quietly and passionately here, but um again had
a site visit on this property and literally you have to get to the edge of
the dock to be able to see up through the tree line. Um Gary's property
respectfully is pretty humble in its current state in comparison to Wild Rice
Bay. Wild Rice Bay is one of the later lakes areas developed which have some
pretty significant size and large larger properties as well. So, anyways, had a
good look at it and uh look forward to you being on the lake full-time and
getting this passed. Cheers. >> Thank you. Any further uh questions or
comments on this application? Uh seeing none, I will read uh the resolution. It
is moved by member Predco, seconded by member Hazelton. Uh, be it resolved that
the Township of Georgia Bay Committee of Adjustment approves minor variance
application A26-29 to zoning bylaw 2014-75 as amended for
192 Wild Rice Trail to facilitate the construction of a dwelling addition as
described below. One uh an in an increase excuse me you had another
question. >> Oh, it's Dave again.
Remember Matthews caution you. My humble apologies for
» Okay. Uh as so we're looking for uh facilitate
the construction of a dwelling addition as described below. One, an increase in
lot coverage to 9.94% whereas section 63 table 6.2 permits a
maximum lot coverage of 8%. Two, an increase in dwelling gross floor
area to 293.57 square meters. Whereas section 6.3.3
permits a maximum gross for area of 275 square meters and an increase in the
dwelling width to 19.9 m whereas section 6.3
permits a maximum width of 15.45 m. The above noted approvals are subject to the
following conditions. One, that the owner provide a property tax certificate
or correspondence from Township Financial Services, indicating that all
property taxes when paid up to date with respect to the property that's subject
to this decision. And two, that the proposed addition be substantially and
proportionately in conformity with the dimensions as set out on the application
and sketches submitted and approved by the committee. And three, that the owner
obtain final occupancy for the existing detached dwelling prior to the issuing
of zoning certificate for the proposed addition and deck. And that the
appropriate zoning certificate and building permit be obtained within three
years from the date of decision from the township only after the committee's
decision becomes final and binding. All those in favor, please indicate by
raising your hand. Thank you. The motion is carried and the
application is approved.
Our next uh and final application is minor variance application A26-30
for two Ireland 3150 in Georgian Bay to the planner please.
» Thank you. and through the chair. The subject property comprises
approximately 1.2 hectares of land above the high water mark and has 178 m of
frontage on Georgian Bay. The island property is located within the Go Home
Bay coastal waterfront community situated south of Long Island and north
of High Rock Island. The property is developed with a dwelling featuring a
wraparound porch, deck, a sleeping cabin, and a dock.
The purpose and effect of the application is to seek relief from the
zoning bylaw to facilitate the expansion of the dwelling and a new septic system.
The proposed dwelling has a gross floor area of 233.68
square me whereas the zoning bylaw permits a maximum gross floor area of
200 square meters. The addition is comprised of a screened porch, new
kitchen layout, a second bathroom, a fourth bedroom, and a covered deck.
» [snorts] >> The septic system will have a setback of
25.8 meters from 178.3 CDD whereas the zoning by requires a minimum setback of
30 m from this contour in the go home bay coastal waterfront community.
The District of Muskoka official plan states that development should preserve
natural form and function by maintaining shoreline integrity, retaining
vegetation and tree cover, and conserving significant natural landscape
features. It also states new development should generally exhibit a physical
character that is similar to or compatible with existing development in
terms of density, lot size, maximum building height, and minimum setbacks to
ensure overall neighborhood compatibility.
A review of seven surrounding island and shoreline properties found that
dwellings have floor areas ranging from 108 to 172 square meters, not including
their porches or covered decks. As these features are included in the gross area
calculation for the proposed dwelling, the comparison is conservative and the
actual gross floor areas of the surveyed dwellings are likely larger and more
comparable to the proposed dwelling. inclusive of porches and covered decks.
The proposed dwelling will have a gross floor area just under 234 square meters.
Staff are of the opinion the development remains compatible with the character of
the surrounding waterfront area as it will maintain a singlestory form, comply
with all minimum setback requirements, and locate the expansion within the
central portion of the island. The district also requires a minimum 30 m
setback from the shoreline for new leeching beds. The proposed septic
system is more than 30 meters from the shoreline.
The township official plan requires septic systems to be located a minimum
of 30 meters from the high water mark and above the regulatory flood elevation
and permits a reduction to be considered through the implementation of a
phosphorus management plan with the intent of the policy to ensure systems
are cited in locations that provide effective phosphorus management and
protect water quality. The proposed septic system exceeds the required 30
meter setback from the high water mark and will be subject to Ontario building
code requirements. The system is proposed in substantially the same
location as the existing system within the central portion of the island where
the greatest concentration of vegetation and soils exist.
The go home bay coastal waterfront community identifies additional policies
and criteria for consideration of minor variance applications. This includes
considering the size in relation to the shoreline frontage lot area and the low
density and intensity nature of the community. The sighting of the
development to minimize impact on existing development and to provide
privacy. The reduction of the visual impact of the development from the water
including but not limited to building height and the built form guidelines.
The built form guidelines specific to dwellings include new construction and
renovation shall respect the longestablished character of development
in the community and its unique sense of place. Dwellings shall generally be
limited to a maximum gross floor area of 200 square meters and 1 and a half
stories or 6 m in height and may be permitted to reach a maximum gross floor
area of 265 square meters with the permission through the minor variance
process in accordance with the community's goals and objectives.
In evaluating the proposal against the criteria for minor variances,
consideration has been given to the size of the dwelling relative to the lot
frontage, lot area, and the low density, low inensity character of the community.
The one-story addition is centrally located on the island, maximizing
shoreline setbacks and minimizing vis, excuse me, visibility from Georgian Bay
and neighboring properties. The resulting gross floor area of 233.68 68
m remains below the 265 square meter maximum generally contemplated through
minor varian process. The proposal maintains the existing architectural
character through the use of wood siding and a steel roof while mature vegetation
and granite outcrops provide natural screening. Overall the proposal
maintains the intent of the built form policies by limiting visual impacts and
preserving the established wilderness cottage character of the go home bay
community.
The subject lands are zone go home bay shoreline residential island or SR
excuse me SRI3. Aside from gross floor area, the
dwelling exceeds all other requirements of the zone. Considering the modest
increase in gross floor area requested and the retention of generous shoreline
setbacks, low coverage, and the existing building height, the proposal is
considered consistent with the intent of the provisions of the community.
Specific to the community, a minimum setback of 30 meters from 178.3 CGD is
required for septic systems. Achieving this setback would require the septic
system to be relocated to the west side of the island. As stated by chief
building official, the proposed replacement septic system location is
reasonable as it is situated within the area containing the majority of the
existing vegetation on the island which is otherwise predominantly exposed
granite. The proposed system maintains the required 30 m setback from the 178.3
contour along the north side of the island with relief requested only for a
reduced setback of 25.8 m in the southeast portion. The proposal meets
the intent of the zoning bylaw by replacing excuse me by facilitating the
replacement and upgrading of an existing septic system while maintaining the
greatest feasible shoreline setback given the site's physical constraints.
The replacement system is expected to improve phosphorus management, protect
water quality, reduce the potential for environmental impacts, and support the
long-term functionality and sustainability of on-site sewage
services.
Here are photos of the island taken from the north and the northeast.
On the left is a photo taken on the northwest side of the island and on the
right is a photo of the vegetation where the septic system is proposed.
The photo on the left was taken next to the dwelling facing the dock on the
northeast side of the island which is pictured in the second photo.
Planning staff conducted a detailed analysis based on the applicable test
stems of planning act outlined in the associated report and are recommending
approval subject to conditions. The committee of adjustment can either
approve any one of the variances or deny with reasons. The committee can defer
the application to a later date if additional information is required to
come to a decision. Thank you. >> Thank you very much, Madam Secretary.
There have been correspondence in this application. One letter was received
from Kelly Nicholson, chief building official, stating concern that the
proposed septic system has not been reviewed in detail and that its
suitability can only be confirmed through a sight specific design reviewed
for compliance with the Ontario building code. And one letter of support was
received from the Madavosa Club of Go Home Bay voicing support for requested
variances.
It looks like there's Kaylee might have a comment to make. I guess the
» Would you tell her to go >> through the chair? The comments have
since been updated. >> Okay, thank you. U appreciate that.
Uh is the applicant present? Uh is there a Fred Belffor in the audience?
» Please step forward and identify yourself for the record.
Andrew Ashcraftoft 4013 912 Cold Water. This is Frederick Belffor.
» Frederick Balfur Island 3150. Go home bay.
» Thank you. And do you have anything to add to the planner's comment so far?
» Uh I can add to a couple things. The everything was very clear from them. We
do currently have a uh the septic bed that's failing there. It was reinspected
last year and was booked for reinspection. So, we do have to do
something no matter what to to bring it up to modern standards. Uh there's one
tree in the middle of the septic ped which is acting as the weepers. So, it's
going to have to come down. Uh and respectfully, Frederick does is very
conscious of trees. Uh he will be planting trees to replace any that are
removed. Um the height also I know we have the
25.8 meter setback we so the height of the base of the septic has to be 178.4
also uh in the Madawaska club our base height
of the septic bed is lower than the rock crop down both the west and the east
side. So the actual distance uh to the south I guess would be 44.2 m.
» Yeah. Just I'll hold you in there. The the the design and implement
implementation of the septic system is not uh a matter of this application and
it's really nothing that the community of adjustment deals with. So it's more
uh you know the heights and the setback and that sort of thing. So if there any
comments in that area, please go ahead. Okay.
Yeah. Okay. >> The addition is I guess the only other
thing is the addition we're adding on. It's matches the building and he's
conscious his family's been there for 100 years. He's maintaining
maintaining the character of the original building and adding they want
to have a later season there before he back home.
» Very good. Anything you wish to add, Mr. Bur?
only that I just checked my my account
twice. I'm afraid you [laughter] you
» that's not a that's not a private. >> Okay. We'd like to thank you for that.
» Thank you, Chairman Hill. >> Okay. Uh is there any member of the
public present that wishes to address the committee on this application? Okay.
Seeing none, I will uh read the resolution.
It is moved uh by member [clears throat]
Matthew, seconded by member Smith.
Oh, >> should we start over then?
Is there anybody on the committee that wishes to uh provide a question or
something? >> All right, seeing none.
» Member Jarvis, please go ahead. >> Thank you chair. Um just some quick
questions that one. I'm always happy to see the cars associations uh put their
two cents in on these things. the college associations particularly up and
down the bay um are very important um provide important input on these things.
So I'm happy to see that out of go home. Um and just a couple curious questions
and I don't think they really pertain to whether I approve or disapprove of this.
Um are you already partaking in some renovations on the main main house
itself? >> Yes, we are.
» Okay. And there's a pile of dirt in one of the questions. Is that one of the
pictures rather? Is that a pile of dirt relevant to the septic or to the
addition you're proposing?
[clears throat]
» Mr. Balf, if I could just point out when the microphone is live, the red lights
on. >> You see that? So if you don't and so
I'll say that again the the soil was barged in because I am planting on the
north side with the intention of creating more of a screen to the
cottages that face to the north than then than than exists.
» Yeah. I mean we we I think we all understand I particularly understand the
nature of the islands up that way. So just curious. Thank you very much.
» Okay. Thank you. Any further questions or comments? That member Matthews.
» Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I had the privilege of visiting Mr. Balffor a
couple of days ago on the island. Um, the location for the addition makes
perfect sense. I don't think anybody will even see it. It's nicely stepped
down about three or four. And I know the septic isn't part of this, but there
seems to be a natural crevice part for it as well. So, I don't have any problem
with this application. And I agree with Mr. Jarvis. It's always nice to get a
cottage association to chime in on on the good side of things, right? So,
thank you. >> And [clears throat] just one final
question I would ask. Is it the uh the closed in porch that puts us uh that
accounts for that 33 additional square meters of uh GFA?
» The addition. Okay. So, that roof overhang. All right. Well, thank you
Matthews for clarification. >> Okay. Uh if there are no further
questions or comments, I will read the resolution. It is moved by uh member
Matthews and uh seconded by member Schmidt. Be it resolved that the
township of Georgia Bay Community of Adjustment hereby approves the following
variances requested under minor variance application A26-30.
One that dwelling have a gross floor area of 233.68
square meters whereas section 7.3.2 two of the zoning bylaw permits a maximum
gross floor area of 200 square meters and two that a septic system having a
setback of 25.8 m from 178.3 uh CGD whereas section 4.27 27 of the
zoning bylaw requires a maximum setback of 30 meters from 178.3
uh CGD in the Go Home Bay coastal waterfront community and subject to the
following conditions. One, that the owner provide a property tax certificate
or correspondence from Township Financial Services indicating that all
property taxes have been paid up to date with respect to the property that is
subject to this decision. and two, that the proposed development is
substantially and proportionately and conformally with the dimensions as set
on the application and sketches submitted and approved by the committee.
And three, that the appropriate zoning certificate and building permit be
obtained within three years from the date of decision from the township only
after the committee's decision becomes final and binding and a minor variance
agreement has been registered. All those in favor, please indicate by raising
your hand. Thank you. The motion is carried and the
application is approved. >> Thank you so much committee members for
providing your time. I know it's Friday afternoon and everyone wants to get
going. So, thank you. >> Thank you very much.
» Um
I'd like to thank everyone for the participation in in the uh today's
public hearing. And we have uh one final resolution
where it's moved by member Matthews and seconded by member Jarvis. Be it
resolved that the township of Georgia Bay committee of a judgment does uh
adjourn at 11:51 on uh
today's date until September 18, 2026 at 10 a.m. or at the call of the chair. All
those in favor, please signify by raising your hand. Thank you. The motion
is carried and the member is adjourned. Thank you all for coming up.
» Thank you everyone.