[6:20] One minute timer.
[6:26] » That's it.
>> Okay. I can I can just reset the
[6:30] password for you if you'd like.
Otherwise, you'll just get
[6:53] » We're live. You can call the meeting to
order.
[6:58] Good morning everyone and uh welcome to
the committee of adjustment meeting for
[7:03] Friday, August 14th.
I hereby uh call this meeting to order
[7:09] at uh 10:01 a.m. And before we begin,
I'd like to acknowledge that we are
[7:15] working on the lands traditionally
occupied by indigenous peoples.
[7:19] Indigenous people continue to care for
this land and continue to shape our
[7:23] township. We show our respect and will
continually honor the treaties that were
[7:27] signed as we consider our decisions and
actions.
[7:33] Uh I would ask members of the committee,
are there any declarations of pecuniary
[7:39] interest or
[7:42] uh conflict of interest? I see member
Schmidt has his hand up.
[7:48] » Yes. uh in application
uh B26-13
[7:53] that is my brother I received no
financial anything from him I assure you
[7:59] um however um I should declare and uh
remove myself from that
[8:04] » thank you very much uh so noted Madam
Secretary
[8:09] uh you would also had the opportunity to
uh read and review the minutes of our uh
[8:16] July 17th
uh committee meeting and I have a motion
[8:23] from uh moved by member Jarvis, seconded
by member Schmidt. Be it resolved that
[8:30] the township of Georgia Bay Community of
Adjustment approves the minutes of July
[8:34] 17
uh 2026 as circulated. All those in
[8:40] favor, please signify by raising your
hand. Thank you. The motion is carried
[8:45] and the minutes are approved.
This morning there's a public meeting
[8:50] for two consent applications and seven
minor variance applications.
[8:56] If you wish
[8:59] for some reason.
[9:04] » Oh, you
[9:08] okay? [clears throat]
[9:14] » So, this morning
[9:21] we'll have a technician.
Thank you.
[9:26] Uh this morning there's a public meeting
scheduled for two consent applications
[9:30] and seven minor variance applications.
If you wish to be notified of the
[9:35] decision of the application on this
agenda, please add your name to the list
[9:39] uh that is on the desk in front or you
can register online. I'll briefly
[9:44] summarize the procedure to be followed
this morning. First, the uh clerk will
[9:48] advise the committee as to when, how,
and to whom notice of each of the
[9:52] hearings was circulated for the
applications being considered.
[9:56] Next, each of the applications will be
considered separately. Planning staff
[10:00] will advise as the person as to the
purpose and effect of the applications
[10:05] and provide any information that is
relevant. The clerk will summarize all
[10:10] correspondence on file and from there,
the applicant may make a brief
[10:14] presentation if they so choose.
Also, the public will have an
[10:18] opportunity to speak to the applications
being considered. After the public
[10:22] forum, the committee will then
deliberate on the proposed applications
[10:26] and consider a motion to pass uh defeat
or defer the decision of the
[10:31] application.
The
[10:34] consent application being considered
this morning are E26-13
[10:39] for 264 264 Hiron Trail, B26-14
for 135 Port 7 Road North.
[10:49] The minor variance applications being
considered are A26-22
[10:54] for 15 Silver Sands Lake Road, A26-25
for 259 Heskuits Drive, A26-26
[11:03] for 39 Railway Street,
A26-27
[11:08] for 268 ID 540. A26-28
for 98 uh Driftwood, A26-29
[11:17] for 192 Wild Rice Trail, and A26-30 for
two island 3150.
[11:25] To the clerk, please.
[11:37] Notice of each of the applications was
sent by first class mail to the
[11:40] respective owners and assessed persons
within 120 meters, 500 meters, or 800
[11:44] meters, and to those persons and
agencies likely to have interest in the
[11:47] application. The notices were sent at
least 20 days prior to this morning's
[11:50] meeting. Included in each notice was an
explanation of the purpose and effect of
[11:54] the application and a key map showing
the location of the property. Other
[11:57] relevant information may have also been
provided. These circulations were
[12:01] provided in accordance with provisions
of the Planning Act 1990.
[12:05] » Thank you. Our first consent application
is application B26-13
[12:12] for 264 Huran Trail. Uh to the planner,
please.
[12:27] » Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of
committee. First application as stated
[12:30] is B2613 for 264 on Trail.
[12:37] The subject property is comprised of
1.72 hectares with a frontage on six
[12:41] mile lake of 156.97
meters. At the present time, the
[12:45] property has a detached dwelling on it
that was constructed on the lot. Sorry,
[12:50] detached dwelling on it
and a garage on the neighboring
[12:54] property. Both 264 and 290 Hiron Trail
are in the same ownership. Access to the
[13:00] property is from here on trail which is
a private is a public road and becomes a
[13:04] private road at 290 Hiron Trail.
A pre-application consultation request
[13:10] was made to the township on June 18th,
2026 with the report being issued on
[13:14] June 19th, 2026.
At the time the of the pre-application
[13:19] submission, the owner was proposing to
create two new residential lots and one
[13:23] retained lot. Based on the submitted
proposal, it was determined at that time
[13:27] that what was being requested would
require an official plan amendment and
[13:31] zoning bylaw amendment based on the
deficiency in lot frontages. At that
[13:35] time, the owner decided that they would
move forward with a request for a
[13:38] boundary adjustment between the two
abiding lots known as 264 and 290 on
[13:42] trail that are both owned by the
applicant. It can be noted that the
[13:46] justification behind the request is to
sever and merge a person portion of 264
[13:51] Hiron Trail to include a detached garage
that was constructed on 264 Hiron Trail
[13:56] in error. A site plan was prepared in
July 2014 by Nino Van Harten Ontario
[14:03] Land Surveyor for a proposed addition on
290 Hiron Trail that identified a garage
[14:07] that was thought to be on 290 Hiron
Trail but was actually loc located
[14:11] located on 264. No new lots are being
created and no no lot frontages are
[14:17] being reduced.
The intent of the consent application as
[14:22] stated is a boundary adjustment between
two abuing parcels of land in the same
[14:25] ownership. The portion of 264 here on
trail proposed to be severed and merged
[14:30] with two 290 here on trail comprised of
approximately 0.59 hectares with the
[14:35] final area to be confirmed through the
preparation of a reference plan. The lot
[14:39] frontage is not being altered and will
remain the same at 156.97
[14:44] m.
This consent act application will
[14:49] rectify the issue of the detached garage
being built in the wrong location.
[14:55] Planning staff have conducted a detailed
analysis of the proposal based on
[14:59] applicable planning legislation and are
recommending approval subject to
[15:02] standard conditions of consent. The
committee does have the option to
[15:06] approve, deny with reasons, or defer the
application for additional information.
[15:10] Thank you.
>> Thank you. Uh, Madame Secretary, has
[15:15] there been correspondence in this
application?
[15:17] » One letter was received from Kaylee
Nicholson, chief building official,
[15:20] stating she has no concerns. One letter
was received from the District of Msoka,
[15:23] stating they have no objection to the
application, and two letters of support
[15:27] were received from Sheila Nazarelli and
Todd Join.
[15:31] » Thank you. Is the applicant present? And
do they wish to address the committee?
[15:36] And do you have anything to add to what
the plane department presented already?
[15:42] » Um, yes.
>> Okay. Would you come up to the
[15:46] microphone and give us your name and
address for the record, please?
[15:57] » My name is Joe Schmidt and it's 290 here
on trail and 264 here on trail. Um, I
[16:03] just wanted the main reason for the
severance a is to get the garage on the
[16:06] property, but the reason that I'm
running the lot line where it is is to
[16:11] prevent um potential future owners from
being able to sever that lot into three
[16:17] three different lots because they could
go for a reasonzoning and we don't want
[16:22] to develop that area. So, that's why I'm
taking what I can.
[16:26] » Okay. Thank you very much. And maybe I
just ask you to stay there in case there
[16:30] are any questions as we go along. Okay.
>> Uh
[16:34] is there any member of the public that
wishes to address the committee on this
[16:38] application?
Okay. Seeing none, I'll close the public
[16:42] portion of the meeting and bring the
application before the committee for any
[16:45] questions or concerns. And we'll begin
with member Predco.
[17:02] Thank you and through for your patience
and through you chair. Um just and I and
[17:06] I'm sure I know the answer to this but I
just want to verify on the the um
[17:13] plan that was provided uh site plan was
was provided in the report. It has a
[17:18] proposed addition illustrated but that's
not for consideration. and we're just
[17:23] consider considering the severance.
Thank you
[17:25] » through you, Mr. Chair. Yes, that's
correct. That was the original that was
[17:28] the survey that actually showed that the
garage was on the wrong property.
[17:32] » Okay. Thank you.
>> Okay. Thank [clears throat] you,
[17:34] » Member Jarvis.
>> Thank you, Chair. Uh Deb, do we have a a
[17:38] survey that shows the revised property
line uh after the severance? Because I I
[17:44] couldn't find that in the documentation.
>> Uh I can bring that up. It was in the
[17:48] the actual um presentation and plus it
was in the
[17:52] » I didn't see that.
>> Yes.
[17:54] » If you would mind bringing up for me.
Thank you.
[18:00] » Give me the page number in the report.
[18:08] » Was there a question about that? Member
Jarvis.
[18:11] » It's just the revised all the property
lines I see do not include the garage.
[18:16] So they all the the original all I'm
seeing is the property lines as per
[18:22] their original drawing, not with the
revision. And I'm just curious to know
[18:25] how the property line aligns. I'm I have
no problem with this. I just wanted to
[18:30] see the see what it looks like.
[18:51] How about this? This application
I have lots of questions.
[19:03] I brought it up on the on the screen. A
member Jarvis
[19:20] Excuse the confusion. I just follow up
then. Okay. I
[19:23] So the lot to be retained is the one
with the cottage on it.
[19:27] » It's a lot being separate that has
cottage on it. Correct.
[19:30] » No.
If you're looking at the screen,
[19:35] part one is the piece that has the
garage on it. That is to merge with the
[19:40] one beside it. We don't have that
doesn't show 290. The actual severance
[19:46] sketch does not show 290. This is 264
here on trail.
[19:51] » Yeah.
>> So, the piece to be severed is part one
[19:54] that will merge with 290 that has the
garage on it and the retained portion is
[19:58] vacant.
[20:05] » [clears throat]
>> Maybe I'll take this offline afterwards,
[20:07] but thank you.
>> Okay. So, we're good with that.
[20:11] » Uh are there any does the committee have
any further questions or comments
[20:15] regarding this application? Okay. Uh
seeing none,
[20:20] uh I will read the resolution.
It is moved by uh member Hazelton,
[20:26] seconded by member Matthews. Be it
resolved that the Township of Georgia
[20:30] Bay Committee of Adjustment hereby
grants provisional approval to the
[20:34] consent application B26-13
to sever a 0.59 hectare parcel of land
[20:42] containing detached garage that was
inadvertently constructed on the subject
[20:46] property despite being intended to be
located within the boundaries of 290
[20:50] Kiron Trail and subject to the following
conditions.
[20:54] One, that the owner provide a property
tax certificate or correspondence from
[20:57] township financial services indicating
that all property taxes have been paid
[21:01] up to date with respect to the
properties subject to this decision.
[21:05] Two, that a draft reference plan be
completed by an Ontario land surveyor
[21:10] and a digital copy filed with the
secretary treasur of the committee of
[21:14] adjustment. Three, that a copy of the
deposited reference plan be provided to
[21:18] the secretary treasur. Four, that a
draft transfer be prepared by a
[21:22] solicitor and submitted to the secretary
treasurer in preparation for the
[21:26] creation of a certificate of official
describing the parcels created by
[21:30] consent. and five that a solicitor's
written undertaking shall be provided to
[21:35] the secretary treasurer indicating that
the necessary steps have been taken to
[21:40] implement the conveyance and merger
consolidate the severed and benefiting
[21:44] parcels of one property identification
number and alter the benefiting parcel
[21:49] if it was created pursuant to section 50
or 53 of the planning act so that it is
[21:53] not identical parcel land or otherwise
addressed to the satisfaction of the
[21:57] township section 50 subsection 12 of the
planning act to facilitate the merger of
[22:03] the lands. And six, that all fees and
dispersements, legal, engineering, and
[22:07] planning, if any, occurred by the
township with respect to the
[22:11] applications being paid for by the
respective owners. All those in favor,
[22:16] please indicate by raising your hand.
Thank you. The [clears throat] motion is
[22:21] carried and the application is approved.
Thank you.
[22:27] Our
second consent application is B26-14
[22:34] for 135 Port7
Road North.
[22:38] Uh to the planner, please.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With your
[22:43] permission, I will share my screen.
[22:52] Morning
[23:01] committee and everyone in attendance
both here and online. My name is Jeff
[23:06] Katkkey and I'm a registered
professional planner employed by the
[23:09] township of Georgian Bay and we're here
this morning again regarding application
[23:12] number B2614
regarding a property municipally known
[23:17] as 135 Port 7 Road North. The owner is a
numbered company and the applicant is
[23:23] represented by MHBC planning. Jamie
Robinson who's also a registered
[23:27] professional planner is here in the
chambers.
[23:32] The site is located at the south part of
Georgian Bay Township in what is known
[23:37] as the Port Severn Urban Center. And
more specifically, it's located on
[23:43] Island K on Port 7 Road North and on
Little Lake.
[23:51] The purpose of the application is to
request consent for easement across
[23:55] lands known as 135 Port 7 Road North for
overland storm water flow routes to
[24:01] benefit lands known as 117 Port 7 Road
North. The effect of the application is
[24:08] to preserve storm water flows from Port
7 Road North to Little Lake after a 48
[24:14] unit residential development is
completed at 117 Port 7 Road North.
[24:22] One owner controls both of these lands
and the 48 unit residential development
[24:28] is being considered by planning council.
Uh B2614 that is before the committee
[24:34] today is only an easement and as you can
see in this drawing the easement is
[24:41] represented by the dotted line with two
dots in it. Whereas the overland storm
[24:47] water flows
are represented by this dotted line that
[24:53] crosses the property
in the emergency overland flow
[24:57] approximately here
and in the regular overland flow
[25:01] approximately here and then weaves along
the property line uh within that uh
[25:07] easement. So it it it crosses in a new
number of places and depending on the
[25:11] amount of storm water that might be
conveyed it it may be considerably onto
[25:18] 135 port 7. It may be very nominally on
135 Port 7.
[25:25] This is a survey of 135 Port 7. 117 Port
7 is located to the west and you can see
[25:32] it is improved with a a detached
residential dwelling which right now has
[25:37] permission uh for a temporary use of a
real estate office. It has a boat house
[25:42] and a dock which
are not entirely on the subject lands.
[25:50] This is the consent sketch that was
prepared by the agent. And again, it
[25:56] shows the residential development on 117
Port 7 Road North to the west. And it
[26:04] shows the existing dwelling and boat
house. Um, plus uh this storm water
[26:11] easement.
[26:16] There is a type one fish habitat, but it
is being very fully considered through
[26:20] the resoning application and through the
site plan application for 117 Port 7
[26:25] Road for which this easement will
benefit.
[26:30] There are no natural hazards that affect
the easement.
[26:35] Again, although the temporary zoning of
these lands are
[26:40] what they are and the residential zoning
is what it is, this is an easement for
[26:45] the adjacent uh multiple residential
zone to the west.
[26:51] And again, I'm sure everyone is familiar
with this part of Port Sever. It's
[26:55] currently uh the Sunny Lee Resort that
is next door at 117 Port 7. And there is
[27:01] a house that is I gather soon to be used
if not already used as a real estate
[27:08] sales office on a temporary basis.
[27:13] The planning services review that I
completed is that this proposed easement
[27:18] um it falls within the subject lands in
the Port Sever urban center in both the
[27:23] MOP and the Georgian Bay official plan.
B2614 conforms to the Mscoa official
[27:30] plan and the Georgian Bay official plan.
The fish habitat, as I mentioned, is
[27:34] being considered through application
Z2614.
[27:39] And there are no hazardous lands andor
hazardous forest types for wildland fire
[27:45] that affect the proposed easement.
And the Georgian Bay zoning bylaw as
[27:50] amended does not regulate storm water
management directly or the proposed
[27:55] easements other than saying something to
the effect that a proposed easement
[27:59] can't be registered without the
permission of the property owner. And in
[28:03] this case, the two property owners are
essentially controlled by the same
[28:08] developer.
Therefore, in my opinion, B2614 is good
[28:12] planning, having regard to provincial
interests, consistent with the
[28:16] provincial planning statement 2024 and
conforming to the Mskoka official plan
[28:22] and the Georgian Bay official plan while
complying with the Georgian Bay zoning
[28:26] bylaw.
The committee does have options as
[28:30] always, and you've asked us to present
them to you. You can approve with the
[28:34] recommended conditions. You can approve
with varied conditions. Or you could
[28:39] refuse stating reasons for the
committee's refusal. You could refer
[28:43] this back to myself. Or you could defer
it.
[28:49] But of course, I am recommending that
you approve it. And I won't read this as
[28:53] I know the chairman will read it
shortly. Um but I will draw your
[28:57] attention to condition number three
which is changing uh given discussions
[29:03] that started late last night uh with the
agent and concluded just moments before
[29:09] this meeting. And essentially what is
being done to condition three is the
[29:14] addition of an optional outcome that
could allow for its waiver. Again, the
[29:23] development the the the development of
the storm water flows in the easement is
[29:27] dependent upon the development to the
west of 117 Port 7 Road North, which is
[29:32] being reviewed uh by council, by the
district, by planning staff under both
[29:38] zoning and site plan control. Um there
may be other options that are not
[29:45] enunciated in condition three that will
satisfy its purpose. And what paragraph
[29:51] C, which is new today, states is that if
those other means are found that we can
[29:57] still wave condition number three
without coming back to you to let you
[30:00] know what that might be. But again,
those uh options would be reviewed
[30:06] either as part of the zoning or more
likely as part of the site plan control
[30:11] process.
So I thank you very much for your
[30:15] attention and I'm available for
questions.
[30:19] Thank you, Mr. Cranky. Um, Madam
Secretary, there have been
[30:23] correspondence in its application.
[30:29] » One letter was received from Kelly
Nicholson, chief building official,
[30:32] stating she has no comments, and one
letter was received from the district of
[30:35] Mskoka stating they have no objection to
the application.
[30:39] » Thank you. Is the applicant present or
their agent? And do they wish to address
[30:44] the committee on this application?
Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman and
[30:48] committee members. My name is Jamie
Robinson. I'm a planner and a partner
[30:52] with MHBC Planning and Barry. If I can
just get screen sharing permission, that
[30:59] would be great. [clears throat] Just
have a couple of things I want to add to
[31:02] what Mr. Kraki has provided, but should
be able to screen share. Should be able
[31:06] to
[31:30] Just while it's loading here, the um I
do agree with the recommendations from
[31:35] Mr. Kraki in his analysis and with
respect to I'll just start at the end
[31:39] with respect to condition number three
that modification is really just to
[31:44] provide some flexibility in how that
condition is dealt with. It's the key
[31:50] aspect is that drainage has to be the
whole purpose behind this condition is
[31:54] drainage and what it allows for is
direct sign off by the district and the
[31:59] township in an agreement by the
applicant if some other solution is is
[32:05] achieved outside of the drainage act as
opposed to being very specific. So I
[32:09] think it's just it's one of those or
situations that everyone has to be agree
[32:14] in agreement with first off. So just a
couple of key elements for committee's
[32:19] consideration is that this uh this
application
[32:25] is a very technical application. It's
not sort of the traditional consent
[32:30] application that this committee deals
with. It's to deal with a very technical
[32:34] issue of storm water management and
drainage.
[32:37] And what I think the committee needs to
understand is first the principle of
[32:41] development related to this site has
been established for a number of years.
[32:45] in this development concept. And
effectively what happens is through the
[32:50] detailed site plan control process
um specific site design elements are
[32:56] realized and one of those elements was
the storm water management and how storm
[33:00] water management's to be completed which
resulted in then this sort of technical
[33:05] application coming into play sort of as
the site plan agreements in its final
[33:10] step. And uh so we are sort of in our
final step of the site plan process with
[33:15] staff and there's a subsequent tweak to
the zoning that's being completed as
[33:20] well to deal with the shoreline area.
But I think the key takeaway for this
[33:23] committee is that at the start um
today sheet flow happens from a
[33:31] stormwater perspective across the site
from Port Sever Road through the site
[33:35] out to the water. When there's something
constructed on this site, when this
[33:39] development's completed, that storm
water effectively goes to one area and
[33:43] then would outlet through this this
drainage easement which is on the
[33:48] neighboring property. Our client again
also does own the neighboring property.
[33:53] Um there likely will be some future
development or expansion of this
[33:57] proposal onto that site at some point in
the future. But in the intern we need
[34:01] diseasement because the properties
haven't been merged as of yet or or may
[34:05] never be merged. Um so again we we do
agree with staff's recommendation. I'll
[34:12] just show a brief
uh one drawing here that shows make that
[34:17] bigger for you
[34:21] that shows the concept and what's being
proposed on the subject site. Um so you
[34:27] can get a a feel for that. But again,
this principle of use has already been
[34:31] established. And then this figure does
show the location of the easement along
[34:36] the the side of the property.
From a technical perspective, CC TAM
[34:43] engineering has been retained and
they've undertaken a wholesome review
[34:46] from a storm water management
perspective and all that their technical
[34:49] report has been reviewed by township
professionals as well as district
[34:54] professionals. Um so with that, Mr.
chairman and members of committee, if
[34:59] there's any questions, I can do my best
to try to answer those today for you. I
[35:04] guess the the only last thing I would
mention is that from a quality
[35:07] perspective is that there is a storm
water management uh plan in place for
[35:13] the site that does require an oil and
grit separator for your the standard
[35:18] flows. This easement is only necessary
for that one and 100year storm. So the
[35:23] major storm event or the traditional
storm septer couldn't handle that event
[35:29] then then there's some overland flow
provided as a result of this. So from a
[35:34] quality perspective and quantity
perspective the design all meets
[35:38] Ministry of the Environment standards
with respect to storm water management.
[35:42] So that was just a item I wanted to add.
>> Okay. [clears throat]
[35:48] Thank you Jamie. Is there any member of
the public that wishes to address the
[35:52] committee on this application?
Okay, seeing none, I'll close the public
[35:57] portion and bring the application before
the committee for any questions or
[36:01] comments. And let's begin with member
Predco.
[36:05] » Thank you through you, chair. And my
microphone's working at this time. Just
[36:08] a very quick question to either the
planner or to the uh agent, and that is
[36:13] whether or not this property is in the
uh source water protection zone. um in
[36:20] Port Severn and I'm just wondering if
there's any concerns with water or
[36:24] affecting that um that provision that we
have in in that area.
[36:29] So the SSEA did not comment with respect
to this easement. However, they did
[36:34] comment with respect to the development
of 117 Port 7 Road North and they did
[36:40] not have any concerns because again it
is being engineered in such a way that
[36:45] uh there should be no impact on water
quality.
[36:49] » Okay. Thank you. That's just want to
make sure.
[36:52] » Uh member Matthews.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um Mr. Robinson,
[36:57] you talked about the one in aundred year
storm which we know happens about every
[37:00] 5 years now. Um I'm just wondering if
it's worth making it I don't know 10%
[37:06] bigger 20% bigger. Um are there concerns
because we've seen many application or
[37:12] many instance where the one in aundred
year storm has had catastrophic effect
[37:16] in different places in the world
[37:22] » through you u Mr. chairman to the
member. Um I'm not an engineer so I
[37:27] can't specifically speak to that. Uh but
I I think part of the my based on my
[37:33] experience in in working with these
situations
[37:37] um the engineers have taken into
consideration the size of the drainage
[37:41] area, the size of not just on the site
but any other sheet flow that might be
[37:45] happening and they've designed it
accordingly. I will certainly bring that
[37:49] comment up to them. Uh but I based on
the review and the size of this
[37:54] easement, it it isn't just the channel,
it provides for a maintenance area
[37:58] outside the channel as well. So it's it
appears to be sufficiently sized.
[38:05] » I will do that.
>> Member Jarvis.
[38:09] » Thank you, Chair. And I'm just going to
piggy back on member Matthew's comments
[38:13] about the one in 100 year storm now
being more like a one in five year or
[38:17] even less type storm. Um I'm curious is
the current drainage in line with with
[38:23] this? Are we just augmenting what is
already in place naturally
[38:30] » through you u Mr. Chairman to the
member? So the current situation is
[38:36] there are no detailed drainage. So
basically the water would flow from port
[38:41] there's no ditches on port 7 road
either. So the water basically just
[38:44] flows naturally across the site. There's
no confined drainage. But what happens
[38:49] as a result of this development is there
is a drainage plan put in place where
[38:53] drainage is directed to one area and
then and then out towards the lake in
[38:58] this specific location. So that's what's
happening. Appreciate it if it's okay to
[39:02] follow up. Um so what we're doing is
we're now taking a flow that's spread
[39:07] over a fair bit of land where it can be
absorbed or any anything that's in it
[39:12] can be absorbed and concentrating it
into one sort of channel. That's a good
[39:16] size channel. I understand that. Um, we
know that salt is a problem within our
[39:21] whole district as as a runoff issue. We
also know that when you concentrate
[39:27] runoff, especially storm water runoff,
you get whatever residue from people
[39:32] washing cars, oil draining out of cars,
and then you've got um whatever
[39:38] accumulates during the winter in the way
of snow pile draining, I presume, into
[39:43] that same area. Is there it looks to me
like the OECP hasn't accommodated for
[39:49] that in this type of situation. Maybe
it'll have to be revised down the road,
[39:53] but is there any way we can accommodate
any of that? Because what we're doing
[39:56] now is concentrating a flow into one
area that would have traditionally gone
[40:01] over a wide area and dispersed. So, I'm
just curious to know if there's any
[40:05] accommodation for that. So, I'm going to
jump in and say that I I think we're
[40:08] really waiting into the detailed
discussions that are still underway
[40:12] between the engineering and
environmental experts on the other
[40:17] applications that are before council in
terms of the zoning application and in
[40:22] terms of the site plan agreement uh with
the district and township staff. And
[40:27] what I will very clearly state is that
so far
[40:33] this proposed overland storm flow has
not triggered any significant concerns
[40:42] from those township peerreview experts.
However, there are still some issues
[40:47] with it, but they actually have to do
more with the uh diameter of the storm
[40:52] water pipe that empties into this flow,
not the interceptor um that is meant to
[41:00] sort materials.
And in some respects, this overland flow
[41:05] moves
any storm water away from the type one
[41:10] fish habitat. Um, but what I will say is
that the turtle habitat is still in some
[41:16] question and so that is being looked at.
But as I say, I think those details are
[41:21] being properly attended to through
cycling.
[41:27] » Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thanks uh um
Jeff. Just to further add to that, and
[41:32] of course, this is um water coming off
the district road. Um, as some members
[41:38] of council might know, the district, um,
Department of Environment and Public
[41:42] Works, um, and their director, James
Steele, is very much part of that
[41:46] working group that that deals and is
looking at salt and our discussions with
[41:50] district staff, very cognizant of that
salt issue. So, that's top of mind in
[41:55] the consideration of this.
>> Could I just maybe add one final thing
[42:00] if I may? Um, I agree with everything
that's been said and and the salt piece
[42:05] is a bit beyond the purview, but just
the final comment is that under the
[42:10] current scenario and historic scenario,
there's no evidence that what's there
[42:15] now would meet ministry requirements or
technical requirements, but the
[42:18] post-development situation that's
proposed would all be designed to meet
[42:23] Ministry of the Environment
requirements. So um there's things like
[42:27] oil and grit separators being proposed
for the parking area and whatnot. So the
[42:32] clear message is that postdevelopment
all ministry of environment requirements
[42:36] would be met and but we don't know the
situation currently.
[42:39] » Thanks guys.
>> Very good.
[42:42] » Any other uh questions or comments from
the committee? Uh seeing none I will
[42:47] read the resolution that is moved uh by
member Schmidt seconded by member
[42:53] Jarvis. Be it resolved that the
committee of adjustment of the township
[42:57] of Georgia Bay grants provisional
approval to consent application B26-14
[43:02] for an easement across parts of land
municipally known as 135 Port 7 Road
[43:07] North for storm water
uh overland flow group required for 48
[43:12] unit residential development on adjacent
lands municipally known as 117
[43:18] uh Port 7 Road North and the decision is
subject to the following conditions.
[43:23] One, that a draft reference plan be
completed by an Ontario land surveyor
[43:27] and a digital copy submitted to the
secretary treasurer of the committee of
[43:30] adjustment for confirmation by township
planning staff that it is in substantial
[43:34] conformity with the consent sketch
attached to the planning services report
[43:38] 2026-159
regarding application B26-14
[43:45] and two that a copy of the
deposited reference plan be provided to
[43:50] the secretary treasur. Item three has
been discussed uh and a lot of
[43:56] clarification from both the agent and
the planner. So I won't uh read that uh
[44:02] portion again.
[44:10] We missing a page.
[44:16] » Technical difficulty
please indulge
[44:21] there.
It's the night shift thing you can't
[44:25] count on.
>> I have the rest of
[44:31] » No, you go ahead. Uh,
>> and that [clears throat] the owner
[44:34] provide property tax certificate or
correspondence from the township
[44:37] financial services indicating that all
property taxes have been paid up to date
[44:40] with respect to the subject uh or the
property subject to this decision. And
[44:44] that a draft transfer be prepared by
solicitor and submitted to the secretary
[44:48] treasurer in preparation for the
creation of the certificate of official
[44:51] describing the easement and that all
fees and dispersements legal engineering
[44:55] planning if any incurred by the township
with respect to the application or the
[45:00] agreements required as conditions of the
decision be paid by the owner.
[45:05] » Thank you very much. Um all those in in
favor [clears throat]
[45:09] uh please indicate by raising your hand.
Thank you. The motion is carried and the
[45:16] application is approved.
[45:26] Our next application
is a minor variance application
[45:33] number A26-22
for 15 Silver Sands Lake Road. to the
[45:41] planner, please.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um,
[45:45] Russell's going to be doing the
presentation, but I just wanted to kind
[45:47] of make a little introduction to this
one. As you know, this application was
[45:51] heard in July, um, July 17th, uh, by the
committee of adjustment and was
[45:55] deferred. It was deferred so the
committee of adjustment could obtain
[45:59] additional information and get some
clarification on things. Um, there was
[46:04] no circulation recirculation required as
um, nothing has changed in the
[46:09] application. The only reason it was
deferred was so the committee members
[46:12] could receive additional information. So
I just wanted to clarify that.
[46:16] » Thank you for that.
>> Thank you and through the chair. As you
[46:21] may recall the subject lands are zone C3
highway commercial exception zone 10 are
[46:26] located approximately 1 kilometers to
the south of MTR have a lot lot area of
[46:31] 8.27 27 acres, a frontage of 185 meters
on Silver Sands Lake Road, and an
[46:37] exterior side yard frontage of 182.9
meters on Lake Joseph Road.
[46:44] The purpose and effect of this minor
variance is to seek relief from the
[46:47] zoning bylaw to A facilitate the
placement of two additional storage
[46:50] propane tanks, b facilitate the
placement of a diesel fuel dispenser,
[46:54] and C to legalize two existing sheds.
The bulk storage propane tanks would
[47:00] result in an exterior sideyard set back
of 27 meters whereas 30 meters is
[47:04] required. The diesel fuel dispenser
would result in an exterior sideyard set
[47:08] back of 3 meters whereas 5 meters is
required. And the legalization of the
[47:12] existing sheds would result in exterior
sideyard setbacks of 0.55 and 0.85
[47:17] meters whereas 5 meters are required.
[47:22] The committee responded with several
fire and public safety concerns
[47:25] regarding planning staff's analysis uh
of the requested variances during this
[47:29] July 17th hearing. The application was
deferred pending receipt and review of
[47:33] the risk assessment plan respecting the
proposed bulk propane storage tanks and
[47:38] diesel fuel dispenser and receipt of the
comments from the township of Georgia
[47:41] Bay Fire Department uh regarding the
proposed development and any associated
[47:46] fire and public safety considerations.
The updated uh risk and safety
[47:51] management pan plan respecting the
proposed tanks and dispenser was
[47:54] provided and approved by fire chief Chad
Dael on July 20th, 2026. This approved
[48:00] plan was received from the fire
department with no additional fire
[48:03] safety or fire protection concerns
resulting from the proposed
[48:06] developments. The committee also
inquired as to whether an increased f
[48:10] fireball radius or risk contours
resulted from the proposed developments.
[48:14] The provided risk and safety management
plan shows that the fireball radius is
[48:18] unchanged and that the calculated risk
contours would expand by approximately
[48:23] 180 meters. This expanded contour
includes approximately 250 to 300 square
[48:28] meters of the corner of one new
property. Though the property's
[48:31] permitted uses do not conflict with the
unsuitable uses of the plan barring
[48:34] childcare facilities. No correspondence
has been received from this owner
[48:38] regarding the proposed variances and the
current 1.6 six kilometer evacuation
[48:42] distance remains unchanged.
Uh member Revette's concerns regarding
[48:47] the approved license capacity and
missing contact information for the
[48:50] occupants of the adjacent properties
were also addressed. Uh Patrick
[48:54] Kirkwood, uh agent and professional
engineer, clarified that there are no
[48:58] licensing requirements for the 1,350
US water gallon tanks as they are for
[49:04] the heating and standby generator and
not part of the propane filling plant
[49:07] license. Um he also clarified that there
are no policies that require uh adjacent
[49:12] owner contact information as this
changes over time and is handled
[49:15] appropriately by the emergency services
in the result of an emergency.
[49:22] In summary, the committee has several
options regarding the proposed
[49:25] development. The application can be
approved, the application can be denied
[49:29] or the application can be deferred with
reasons and identification of the
[49:32] additional information required for the
committee to come to a decision.
[49:36] Planning staff are recommending approval
of the variance as requested and are of
[49:40] the opinion that the committee's
questions and concerns have been
[49:43] addressed. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Uh is the applicant or their
[49:48] agent present and do they wish to
address the committee on this topic?
[49:54] » Please please step forward and identify
yourself
[49:58] uh with name and address please for the
record.
[50:02] » Uh I'm James Callo. I live at 1995 Oyer
Circle in Sever.
[50:07] » Thank you.
>> Patrick Kirkwood live at 110 Mckran Lane
[50:12] in Gravenhurst.
>> Thank you very much. Uh well, we'll ask
[50:17] you to remain in case there are some
questions. Uh is there any member of the
[50:21] public present that wishes to address
the committee on this application? Okay,
[50:25] seeing none, I'll close the public
portion and bring the application before
[50:28] the committee for any questions or
comments.
[50:33] Okay, we see no questions or comments
and I think that's due to the fact that
[50:39] we spent a lot of time going through any
concerns at our previous meeting and uh
[50:44] thank you very much to the planning
department for addressing all of those.
[50:48] So, we're uh we're now better informed
than we were last month. Thank you. Uh
[50:53] with that, I will read the resolution is
moved by member Predco and seconded by
[50:57] member Schmidt. Be it resolved that the
township of Georgia Bay committee of
[51:01] adjustment approves bind variance
application A26-22
[51:05] to zoning bylaw 2014-75 as amended for
15 Silver Sands Lake Road to facilitate
[51:11] the placement of two bulk propane
storage tanks, one diesel fuel dispenser
[51:17] and the legalization of two sheds as
described below. uh one an exterior
[51:23] sideyard setback of the bulk storage
tanks of 27 m whereas C310 bylaw
[51:29] 2015-12.4
permits a minimum of 30 m. Two, an
[51:36] exterior sideyard setback for the diesel
fuel pump of 3 meters whereas section
[51:40] 10.3 permits a minimum of 5 meters.
three external exterior sideyard
[51:47] setbacks of 0 55 meters for the easterly
shed and a 0.85 meters for the westerly
[51:54] shed whereas section 10.3 permits a
minimum of 5 meters. The above not
[51:59] approval is subject to the following
conditions. One that the owner provide a
[52:03] property tax certificate or
correspondence from township financial
[52:06] services indicating that all property
taxes been paid up to date with respect
[52:10] to the property that is subject to this
decision. Two, that the proposed bulk
[52:15] storage uh tanks and diesel fuel
dispenser be substantially and
[52:19] proportionately in conformity with the
dimensions as set on the application and
[52:23] site plan submitted and approved by the
committee. And three, that the
[52:28] appropriate zoning certificate of
building permit be obtained within three
[52:31] years from the date of decision from the
township only after the committee's
[52:35] decision becomes final and binding. All
those in favor, please indicate by
[52:39] raising your hand.
Thank you. The motion is carried and the
[52:43] application is approved. Thank you
everyone.
[52:50] Our next minor variance application is
A26-25
[52:54] for 259 Haskit Drive. To the planner,
please.
[53:22] That was a compliment. I think
[53:40] Thank you, Mr. Chair. The subject
property no municipal has 259 Haskit
[53:44] Drive is located in within the 6 mile
lake waterfront community boundary. The
[53:48] property has a lot frontage on 6mile
lake of 39 m and is comprised of 3,32.63
[53:55] square meters. The shoreline is
predominantly maintained in a natural
[53:59] state with mature trees and vegetation
providing an effective buffer from the
[54:03] lake.
A pre-application was completed on June
[54:07] 9th, 2026 for the construction of a
detached garage on the subject lands. It
[54:12] was determined that in order to develop
the property further, a minor variance
[54:15] would be required for a reduction in the
minimum interior sideyard setback and an
[54:20] increase in the maximum lot coverage
within 60 meters of the high water mark
[54:23] as well as the overall lot coverage. A
minor variance application was received
[54:28] by the township on June 18th, 2026 and
was deemed complete.
[54:34] The additional proposed development on
the property is the construction of a
[54:37] 62.80 square meter detached garage. The
detached garage is proposed to be a
[54:42] one-story in height and will meet the
maximum height permitted as per section
[54:46] 4.1.11
of the zoning bylaw as well as the
[54:50] maximum ground floor area. As a
recommended condition of approval, staff
[54:54] did recommend site plan approval in the
report. How after however after sorry
[54:59] however upon further investigation it
can be noted that site plan approval is
[55:03] not required and therefore the proposed
condition number two as noted in the
[55:07] recommended resolution is not necessary.
The property is within the six mile lake
[55:13] waterfront community boundary. The b the
character of the six mile lake
[55:16] waterfront community is of a residential
community composed of district distinct
[55:21] neighborhoods focused on the various
basins of the lake. It consists of many
[55:25] island and mainland uses with a variety
of access needs. This character shall be
[55:30] maintained and enhanced through careful
land use planning. Legally existing uses
[55:34] which consist of residential uses,
existing marinas, public access,
[55:38] launching areas, and large areas of
crown land are permitted. Limited new
[55:42] single detached residential uses are
permitted as per the policies of this
[55:46] official plan. the existing land use as
well as the proposed detach detached
[55:51] garage would be recognized as a
permitted use within the waterfront
[55:55] community.
The preferred location of the proposed
[55:59] garage is to be 1.5 m from the interior
sideyard due to the rock outcrop that is
[56:04] on the opposite side of the driveway.
The owners did not want to blast in
[56:08] order to accommodate the garage at the
required setback. There is still
[56:11] adequate room for cars to get past the
garage and carry on to the main cottage
[56:15] location which is significantly sloped
towards the lake.
[56:23] The committee has options in regards to
this application. They can approve the
[56:27] application as recommended by planning
staff, deny the application or defer the
[56:31] application with reasons identifying the
additional information or actions that
[56:35] the committee of adjustment considers
necessary to make a decision. staff are
[56:39] supportive of the variance request
subject to the recommended conditions
[56:42] being included in an approved decision
and the owner fulfilling the
[56:46] requirements of the conditions
implemented. Thank you.
[56:49] » Thank you very much madam secretaries
have been correspondents in this
[56:53] application.
>> One letter was received from Kelly
[56:55] Nicholson, chief building official
stating that building permits will be
[56:58] required and one letter of support was
received from Wayne Zronic.
[57:04] Uh is the agent present and do they wish
to identify themselves uh the committee?
[57:16] » Good morning committee. Uh my name is
Victoria Hoffman from Flow Drawings and
[57:20] Design 3 Violet Drive. Um this
application today is for a detached
[57:26] garage. Um the reduced setback as Deb
explained is because of the topography
[57:32] of the property. They were kind of
working with the rock that's on the
[57:35] other side of the property. Um we did
receive a letter of support from the
[57:40] neighboring property that we're getting
we're encroaching on. Um the purpose of
[57:44] the garage is just to basically put he
has some stuff on the property now that
[57:49] he would like to store indoors. Um that
includes tractor, snowb blower, boat
[57:53] trailer. Um he's looking for some secure
storage for those items. Um he also has
[57:59] a seat can on the property that he would
like to move that stuff out of and keep
[58:02] in an actual garage. It's a modest size
garage. Um we also this morning we
[58:07] received a letter from the other
neighboring property as well which Deb
[58:11] has so there was support on both sides.
Um property owner is here behind me Carl
[58:16] Isis. Um but we're just here to answer
any questions if you have any.
[58:20] » Okay. Thank you very much. Is there any
member of the public that wishes to
[58:24] address the committee on this
application? Okay, seeing none, I'll
[58:27] close the public portion of the
application and bring the matter before
[58:31] the committee for any questions or
comments.
[58:35] And uh we'll begin with member Matthews.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's hard to beat
[58:39] Mr. Jarus today. He must slowly
um Victoria, I'm just curious. A lot of
[58:46] times people come to us for um garages
that are about twice as big as this.
[58:51] » Yeah. [laughter]
>> Um I just wondered if that has been a
[58:54] consideration at all because if you're
storing stuff, you can never really have
[58:58] enough storage in that price, right?
>> Yeah. We had we had talked about it, but
[59:02] they just wanted this was the size they
wanted and we didn't we didn't really
[59:05] push forward.
>> That's great.
[59:08] » [snorts]
>> Uh, member Smith,
[59:13] » I think it's evident by the room here
there's support on this application, but
[59:16] I did have the opportunity to see the
property from the water and from the
[59:20] from the landside and this is a logical
spot for it to sit with the twist in the
[59:24] lane with the rock and always nice to
see a letter of support from a
[59:27] neighboring property that this gets
close to. So, thank you.
[59:31] » Okay, [clears throat] thank you. If
there are no more questions, I'll read
[59:34] the resolution. It is moved by member
Hazelton, separate uh seconded by member
[59:39] Matthews. Be it resolved that the
township of Georgia Bay committee of
[59:43] adjustment approves minor variance
application A26-25
[59:47] to zoning bylaw 2014-75
for 259 Haskitz Drive to seek relief
[59:55] from the zoning bylaw to facilitate the
construction of a 62.8
[59:59] square meter NTA garage as described
below.
[1:00:04] And uh we've seen that description uh
based on the following conditions. Uh
[1:00:08] one that the owner provide a property
tax certificate or correspondence from
[1:00:12] township financial services indicating
that all property taxes have been paid
[1:00:16] up to date with respect to the property
that is subject to this decision. Two,
[1:00:20] that the proposed detached garage is
substantially in proportionate in
[1:00:23] conformity with the dimensions as set of
the application and sketches submitted
[1:00:29] and approved by the committee. Three,
that a qualified professional verify by
[1:00:33] pinning the foundation ball and
verifying in writing or bor survey uh
[1:00:38] report uh prior to the pouring of the
footings and no uh footings the
[1:00:43] foundation that the detach is no closer
than 1.5
[1:00:48] m from the northern northerly uh
interior line. and four that the
[1:00:54] appropriate zoning certificate of
building permit be obtained within three
[1:00:58] years from the date of decision from the
township only after the committee's
[1:01:01] decision becomes final and binding. All
those in favor of approval, please
[1:01:06] indicate by raising your hand.
Thank you. The motion is carried and the
[1:01:11] application is approved.
[1:01:15] Our next application is A26-26
for 39 Railway Street to the planner,
[1:01:24] please.
[1:01:31] » Thank you. And through the chair, the
subject lands are zoned residential type
[1:01:35] 4 are located in Mtier, have a lot area
of 1421.42
[1:01:41] 42 square meters or approximately 0.35
acres, a frontage of 31.09 meters on
[1:01:47] Railway Street, and an exterior sideyard
frontage of 45.67 meters on Park Drive.
[1:01:53] The property is currently developed with
a duplex dwelling and no other accessory
[1:01:57] structures.
[1:02:02] The purpose and effect of this minor
variance is to seek relief from the
[1:02:04] zoning bylaw to facilitate the
construction of a detached garage with a
[1:02:08] floor area of
133.6 m whereas 112 m is permitted by
[1:02:15] section 411D
and a front yard setback of 4 meters
[1:02:19] whereas 7.5 m is required by section
411f.
[1:02:24] The subject property is designated urban
center in both the district of Mskoka
[1:02:28] and township of Georgian Bay official
plans. The proposed development conforms
[1:02:32] to the policies of this designation as
it constitutes a permitted accessory use
[1:02:36] that is secondary to the existing
residential dwelling which will remain
[1:02:40] the primary use of the property. Um the
applicant has indicated that the garage
[1:02:44] um alongside the storage of vehicles and
household items will be used to
[1:02:48] facilitate the um restoration of the
dwelling at some point in the future.
[1:02:56] Uh purposes and intents of maintaining
the front yard setback include
[1:02:59] maintaining clear sight lines to
maintain public uh and road safety,
[1:03:03] accommodating utilities and associated
maintenance, providing space for
[1:03:07] drainage and infiltration, maintaining
privacy and green uh greenery and
[1:03:11] ensuring adequate parking is provided.
Um despite the reduced uh front yard
[1:03:16] setback, an additional 10 meter buffer
exists between the edge of the traveled
[1:03:20] road and the property boundary. This
buffer contains the hydro and telephone
[1:03:24] utilities and ensures a clear sight line
toward the intersection of park drive
[1:03:28] and railway street. Um it also retains
adequate space for um snow removal and
[1:03:33] road maintenance. Um the lands across
from the subject lands are shielded by a
[1:03:37] rock berm uh thereby screening it from
the development. Um and the garage is
[1:03:41] positioned with this lesser setback to
retain existing mature uh cedar trees
[1:03:45] and a rock outcropping on the property
uh which also would likely uh retain uh
[1:03:50] screening from the adjacent property.
While the garage can be realistically
[1:03:54] expected to accommodate some of the
legal uh parking spaces due to its size
[1:03:58] but single uh road-facing vehicle door,
the remainder of the two required spaces
[1:04:03] cannot be legally accommodated by the
lesser front yard setback in front of
[1:04:06] the garage. Um, however, because the
duplex dwelling is currently unoccupied
[1:04:10] and the subject lands are large enough
to accommodate the required four parking
[1:04:14] spaces in a variety of future uh
configurations, planning staff do not
[1:04:18] believe that it is currently necessary
to determine the exact location of these
[1:04:21] parking spaces as part of this minor
variance application.
[1:04:26] The lesser front yard setback of the
detach garage also maintains the
[1:04:29] character of the neighborhood as
detached garages on several surrounding
[1:04:32] properties uh are also positioned in the
front yard with similar width.
[1:04:39] Uh purposes and intents of the maximum
garage floor area include ensuring
[1:04:42] accessory structures remain subordinate
to the um pre uh principal dwelling,
[1:04:47] preventing overdevelopment and
minimizing visual impacts on the
[1:04:50] surrounding properties. The existing
dwelling would remain prominent in scale
[1:04:54] as it is a wide two-story duplex
dwelling and the proposed detached
[1:04:57] garages designed to be narrow yet deep.
These subject lands are also large
[1:05:02] relative to the surrounding lots within
the MTI urban center with a proposed lot
[1:05:05] coverage of 21.95%
whereas 30% is permitted as covered
[1:05:11] previously. Privacy and access to
sunlight from the surrounding properties
[1:05:13] would be largely maintained as the
garage has been positioned to retain
[1:05:16] existing vegetation in the setback.
Thus, planning staff are of the opinion
[1:05:20] that the proposed detached garage is
minor in nature, appropriate and
[1:05:24] desirable for the use of the land, and
maintains the general intent and purpose
[1:05:27] of the zoning bylaw and official plans.
[1:05:32] In summary, the committee has several
options regarding the proposed
[1:05:35] development. The application can be
approved, the application can
[1:05:38] [clears throat] be denied, or the
application can be deferred with reasons
[1:05:41] and identification of the additional
information required to come to a
[1:05:44] decision. For the reasons outlined,
planning staff are supportive of the
[1:05:47] variances requested subject to
recommended conditions, including that a
[1:05:51] driveway entrance permit is obtained for
access to the garage. That concludes the
[1:05:55] presentation. Thank you.
>> Thank you very much,
[1:05:59] Madam Secretary. There have been
correspondence in this application.
[1:06:02] » One letter was received from Kelly
Nicholson, chief building official,
[1:06:05] suiting that building permits will be
required. And one letter was received
[1:06:08] from Canadian Pacific Kansas City
Railway Company noting that residential
[1:06:12] development within 500 meters of its
rail corridor should account for all
[1:06:16] rail uh related safety, noise,
vibration, drainage and access
[1:06:20] considerations associated with rail
operations.
[1:06:23] » Thank you very much. Is the applicant
present or there would you care to
[1:06:28] address the committee and add any uh
information to what the planners
[1:06:31] provided?
Nothing to add. I'll uh let's start by
[1:06:35] getting your name and address, please.
>> My name is Kim Bradshaw and I live at 14
[1:06:40] Park Drive, just adjacent to 39 Railway.
>> Okay, thank you very much. Uh is there
[1:06:47] any member of the public that's present
that wishes to address the committee on
[1:06:51] this application?
Okay, seeing none, I'll uh close the
[1:06:54] public portion, bring the application
before the committee for any questions
[1:06:57] or comments.
And
[1:07:02] I was about to say seeing none and then
this hand went up.
[1:07:07] » Member Jarvis,
>> I'm just curious. I I realized that
[1:07:10] there's not an issue with this, but what
is what's the sideyard setback on this?
[1:07:15] I I missed I missed the number. So it's
in the report. I missed it.
[1:07:19] » Uh 3 meters.
>> Sorry.
[1:07:21] » 3 meters.
>> Three meters to the sideyard. That was
[1:07:24] one like one drop. Okay. I appreciate
that. Thank you. Okay,
[1:07:29] thank you. Uh, if there are no further
questions, I will read the resolution.
[1:07:33] Is moved by member Matthew, seconded by
member Jarvis. Be it resolved that the
[1:07:39] township of Georgia Bay community of
adjustment approves mine variance
[1:07:42] application A26-26
to zoning bylaw 2014-75
[1:07:48] as amended for 39 railway road to
facilitate the construction of a
[1:07:52] detached garage as described below.
one a floor area of 133.59
[1:07:58] square meters whereas 112 square meters
are permitted and a front yard setback
[1:08:04] of 4 meters whereas 7.5 m is required.
Uh the above noted approvals are subject
[1:08:11] to the following conditions. One that
the owner provide a property tax
[1:08:14] certificate or correspondence from
township financial services indicating
[1:08:18] that all property taxes been paid up to
date with respect to the property that
[1:08:22] is subject to this decision. Two, that
the proposed detached garage is
[1:08:26] substantially and proportionately in
conformity with the dimensions as set
[1:08:30] out on the application and sketches
submitted and approved by the committee.
[1:08:34] And three, that the owner obtain a
driveway entrance permit for garage
[1:08:38] access. And four, that an approved
[clears throat] zoning bylaw certificate
[1:08:45] uh and building permit be obtained
within three years from the date of
[1:08:48] decision from the township only after
the committee's decision becomes final
[1:08:52] and binding. All those in favor, please
indicate by raising your hand.
[1:08:57] Thank you. The motion is carried and the
application is approved.
[1:09:04] » Our next application
is minor variance A26-27
[1:09:11] for 368 Island 540 in Georgian Bay. To
the planner, please.
[1:09:30] Thank you and through your chair.
The subject property is located on
[1:09:34] present island and has an area of 0.45
acres with a frontage of 38.9 meters
[1:09:40] onto Georgian Bay. A detached dwelling
and a dot currently occupy the lands.
[1:09:45] Present Island is characterized as
having pockets of dench vegetation,
[1:09:48] beachfront shoreline, and dwellings and
accessory buildings in part being
[1:09:52] visible from the water.
The purpose and effect of the
[1:09:56] application is to seek relief from the
zoning bylaw to facilitate the
[1:10:00] construction of a covered deck at the
front wall of the existing dwelling
[1:10:03] encroaching into the required front yard
setback of 20 m. Section 4.13 of the
[1:10:09] zoning bylaw permits a maximum front
yard encroachment of 2 meters for
[1:10:13] porches or screen porches, whereas an
encroachment of 4.4 meters is proposed.
[1:10:20] The subject proposal consists of a cover
deck addition to the existing
[1:10:23] residential use and does not introduce a
new land use, increase residential
[1:10:27] density or alter the establishment
established pardon function of the
[1:10:32] property. Rather, it is a modest
improvement to the existing dwelling and
[1:10:36] enhances the usability of outdoor
amenity space while maintaining the
[1:10:39] property's residential character. Given
the limited scale of the proposal, its
[1:10:43] compatibility with surrounding
development, and the maintenance of the
[1:10:47] existing residential use and waterprint
character of the property, staff will
[1:10:50] find the prop that the proposed covered
deck represents a desirable and
[1:10:54] appropriate development.
Subject property is designated
[1:10:58] waterfront and is not located with any
coastal or inland waterfront communities
[1:11:03] within the township's official plan. The
waterfront designation recognizes
[1:11:07] residential uses and accessory buildings
and structures as permitted uses. The
[1:11:12] proposed development is compatible with
the existing pattern of residential
[1:11:15] development along Georgian Bay and
specifically on present island. The
[1:11:20] waterfront landscape is characterized
primarily by dwellings visible from the
[1:11:23] water together with a variety of
shoreline structures and accessory
[1:11:27] buildings located within the sides or
rear yards. The front facade of the
[1:11:31] dwelling will remain visible to the
water although it will be continued to
[1:11:35] be partially screened and framed by
vegetation present on the subject lands.
[1:11:42] The intent of limiting deck
encroachments into the front yard on
[1:11:45] waterfront lots is to ensure that the
development remains appropriately set
[1:11:48] back from the shoreline, maintains a
visual character of the waterfront, and
[1:11:52] preserves a balance between natural and
built form. In this regard, the proposed
[1:11:56] covered deck continues to respect the
overall intent of the zoning provision.
[1:12:00] While the deck will be covered, the
proposed proposal does not overall
[1:12:04] increase the width or height of the
dwelling and therefore does not
[1:12:07] materially alter the scale, massing or
vis visual prominence of the building.
[1:12:12] As a result, the development does not
contribute to a noticeable
[1:12:15] intensification of built form within the
front yard. As shown on screen, the
[1:12:20] proposed development includes the
removal of the existing open deck at the
[1:12:24] front of the dwelling, which currently
encroaches 3.8 8 m into the front yard
[1:12:27] and the construction of the new covered
deck which will only increase 0.6 m
[1:12:32] encroachment into the required front
yard.
[1:12:36] The committee can either approve or deny
the variance being requested. The
[1:12:40] committee may also defer the application
to a later date if additional
[1:12:44] information is required to come to a
decision. Planning staff have completed
[1:12:47] a detailed analysis of the variance of
the zoning bylaw being requested and are
[1:12:51] recommending approval subject to
conditions. Thank you.
[1:12:54] » Thank you. Have we had correspondence in
this application?
[1:12:58] » One letter was received from Kaylee
Nicholson, chief building official,
[1:13:01] stating that she has concerns regarding
the proposed location of the west deck
[1:13:04] due to the septic proximity.
>> Thank you. Is the applicant present and
[1:13:09] do they wish to address the committee on
this application?
[1:13:22] Hi [laughter]
Are you still at Violet Drive?
[1:13:26] » I am. Have it moved.
>> You still Victoria Hoffman?
[1:13:29] » Yes, I am.
>> Very good.
[1:13:31] » Answered all the questions.
>> Um,
[1:13:37] sorry. So, yes, this application, the
existing structure has a setback of 15.8
[1:13:42] m, um, which is the open deck foundation
and a retaining wall. What we're trying
[1:13:47] to do is work off of that, but cover the
new deck. Um the new deck will be
[1:13:53] squared off with the building whereas
the old one kind of jutted in from the
[1:13:56] corners a little bit which is what
brings us to the slightly reduced um set
[1:14:00] front setback from 15.8 to 15.6 m. Um
the roof line will be continuous. It'll
[1:14:07] be a straight gable out. So from the
water the idea is that it's going to
[1:14:09] look very similar. Um and basically just
covering a space that he already has.
[1:14:13] Um, we did look into the septic
locations and we do meet all the
[1:14:18] building code requirements and Kaylee
did acknowledge that in an email that
[1:14:22] came after her comments. She's not here
but
[1:14:26] here to answer any questions. The
property owner is also in the room. Mark
[1:14:29] Wagner at the back there, but we're just
here to answer. Oh, is here.
[1:14:36] » Okay.
>> Yeah.
[1:14:38] » Um, we have a hand up.
Oh, from Kaylee Nicholson, our chief
[1:14:45] building official. Did you have a wish
to make a comment, Kaylee? Go ahead.
[1:14:50] » You bet. Uh through you, chair. I just
wanted to make note that uh my comments
[1:14:53] had been updated. We did uh um go
through and receive a new site plan from
[1:14:59] Victoria and uh we no longer have
concerns.
[1:15:03] » Okay, thank you very much for that
clarification. Is there any member of
[1:15:07] the public present that wishes to
address the committee on this
[1:15:10] application? Okay, seeing none, I will
close the public portion, bring the
[1:15:14] application before the committee for
questions or comments.
[1:15:19] And seeing none,
I will read the resolution. Uh, be it
[1:15:25] resolved that the Township of Georgian
Bay Committee of Adjustment approves
[1:15:28] binder variance application A26-27
to zoning B 2014-75 as amended for 368
[1:15:36] Island 540 Georgia Bay to facilitate the
construction of a covered deck on the
[1:15:41] front wall of an existing drawing as
described below. Uh, one an encroachment
[1:15:47] of 4.4 meters into the required front
yard setback whereas a maximum
[1:15:50] encroachment of 2 meters is permitted.
The above noted approvals are subject to
[1:15:55] the following conditions. One, that the
owner provide a property tax certificate
[1:15:59] or correspondence from township
financial services indicating that all
[1:16:03] property taxes have been paid up to date
with respect to the property that is
[1:16:06] subject to this decision.
Two, that the proposed covered deck be
[1:16:10] substantially in proportionately in
conformity with the dimensions as set
[1:16:14] out on the application and sketches
submitted and approved by the committee.
[1:16:18] and three, that the appropriate zoning
certificate building permit be obtained
[1:16:21] within three years from the date of
decision from the township only after
[1:16:25] the committee's decision becomes final
and binding. All those in favor, please
[1:16:29] indicate by raising your hand.
Thank you. The motion is carried and the
[1:16:35] application is approved.
[1:16:41] Our next application
is A26-28
[1:16:46] for 98 Driftwood Lane. To the planner,
please.
[1:16:54] » Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The subject property known as known
[1:16:58] municipally as 98 Driftwood Lane is
located within the Six Mile Lake
[1:17:01] waterfront community boundary. The
property has a lot frontage on six mile
[1:17:05] lake approximately 56 meters and is
comprised of 0.34 hectares. It is
[1:17:10] identified as a budding and narrow water
body with ingress and egress to the
[1:17:14] property crossing property owned by the
Ministry of Natural Resources from
[1:17:17] Driftwood Lane. The property has a
fairly natural short natural has a
[1:17:22] fairly natural shoreline with some
mature trees which will be retained.
[1:17:28] The current owners of the property took
possession of the lot in 2024. An
[1:17:32] application for a minor variance was
received by the township on July 10th,
[1:17:36] 2026 and deemed complete. At the present
time, there is a detached dwelling on
[1:17:41] the property that was constructed in
1956.
[1:17:44] According to the site plan submitted,
there's also an existing sleeping cabin,
[1:17:48] detached garage, and a carport that is
not recognized by EMPAC. The owners wish
[1:17:52] to demolish the existing dwelling and
construct a new dwelling with a walkout
[1:17:56] basement, but will not be utilizing the
non-conforming footprint for the
[1:18:00] existing dwelling. The property, as
stated, is within the Six Mile Lake
[1:18:04] waterfront community. The township does
have a building permit records on the
[1:18:08] property for a new septic system in
2020, and a detached garage and a dock
[1:18:12] in 2025.
The new structure is to be moved back
[1:18:15] further on the property, but will not
meet the minimum high watermark setback,
[1:18:19] maximum lot coverage, maximum gross
floor area permitted, as well as the
[1:18:23] maximum width permitted for a dwelling.
The owners wish to demolish the existing
[1:18:28] dwelling and construct a larger new
dwelling further away from the high
[1:18:32] water mark. The new dwelling will be
224.2
[1:18:35] square meters which includes an attached
deck. No additional work is to take
[1:18:39] place on the shoreline of the property.
As the lot is less than 4,000 square
[1:18:44] meters in size, there is a maximum gross
floor area and maximum width of a
[1:18:48] dwelling in the sixmile lake waterfront
community. A minor variance is required
[1:18:52] as the size of the new dwelling will be
34.2 2 square meters larger than
[1:18:57] permitted in the SR6 zone. The width
will be 6.49 m wider than permitted and
[1:19:02] an increase in the maximum lot coverage
and a reduction in the minimum high
[1:19:06] water mark setback. There was an error
in the report under [clears throat] the
[1:19:09] proposal heading indicating that the
dwelling would be 34% larger where it
[1:19:14] should have been 34.2 square meters
larger than the permitted gross floor
[1:19:18] area at 190 square meters. Comments were
received by the chief building official
[1:19:23] who has expressed concerns regarding the
feasibility of installing a new sewage
[1:19:26] system and the potential constraints
including the minimum setback to the
[1:19:30] high water mark as well as required
clearance clearances from existing hydro
[1:19:34] lines. The property as stated is within
the six mile lake waterfront community
[1:19:40] and as committee is aware that there is
a specific character that is permitted
[1:19:44] and looked at in the six mile lake
waterfront community. the existing land
[1:19:48] use as well as the demolition of the
existing dwelling and construction of a
[1:19:51] new detached dwelling would be
recognized as a permitted use within
[1:19:55] this waterfront community.
[1:20:00] As you can see in the pictures, there
are some areas on the property upon
[1:20:04] visiting it that um has started to erode
on the shoreline here. has been pointed
[1:20:09] out and this is the location where the
new dwelling is to be back in here and
[1:20:14] the existing cottage is only 5 mters
from the high water mark as you can see
[1:20:18] which we're going to be moving back.
The lands within 15 meters of the high
[1:20:24] watermark on all lots in any shoreline
residential zone or shoreline
[1:20:28] residential island zone shall be
maintained in a natural state with this
[1:20:31] area being considered the natural
shoreline area. A shoreline activity
[1:20:36] area shall be permitted within the
natural state shoreline area to provide
[1:20:39] access to the shoreline and locations
for land-based shoreline accessory
[1:20:43] buildings and structures. In the SR6
zone, the shoreline activity area shall
[1:20:48] be a maximum of 25% of the natural state
shoreline area and shall have a maximum
[1:20:53] width of 25% of the shoreline length at
any point within 15 meters of the high
[1:20:58] water mark. As the existing dwelling is
being demolished and the new dwelling is
[1:21:02] being located farther away from the high
water mark, there'll be ample area to
[1:21:06] plant native vegetation and better the
natural state shoreline area existing.
[1:21:11] Staff are recommending a condition that
an area of approximately 34 square
[1:21:15] meters of additional native plantings be
incorporated into the development plan.
[1:21:20] This is to be located within 15 meters
of the shoreline and has been calculated
[1:21:24] based on the difference in the increase
in the gross floor area being sought. A
[1:21:29] landscape plan will be required to be
incorporated into the site plan
[1:21:32] agreement which can be prepared by the
applicant and based on identified native
[1:21:36] plants to this area.
Staff are supportive of the variance
[1:21:41] request subject to the recommended
conditions being included in an approved
[1:21:44] decision and the owner fulfilling the
requirements of the conditions
[1:21:48] implemented. The committee adjustment
members do have options. They can
[1:21:51] approve the application as recommended
by planning staff, deny the application
[1:21:55] or defer the application with re
reasons, identifying the additional
[1:21:59] information or actions that the
committee of adjustment considers
[1:22:02] necessary to make a decision. Thank you.
>> Thank you very much. Has there been
[1:22:07] correspondence on this application? One
letter was received from Kelly
[1:22:11] Nicholson, chief building official,
stating that building permits will be
[1:22:14] required and only issued where the
sewage system and dwelling can be built
[1:22:17] in compliance with the Ontario building
code.
[1:22:20] » Thank you. Is the applicant present and
do they wish to address the committee on
[1:22:24] this application?
[1:22:29] » Please uh turn on the mic and give us
your name, address, please. It's Rob
[1:22:35] Carzwell at 130 Heath Valley Trail on
Port 7.
[1:22:40] » Thank you. And uh did you have anything
to add to what the planner had provided
[1:22:45] so far?
>> No.
[1:22:46] » Okay. Then uh please hang in there in
case there are questions from the uh
[1:22:51] committee. Is there any member of the
public that's present that wishes to
[1:22:54] address the committee on this
application? Okay. Seeing none, I'll
[1:22:58] close the public portion and bring the
application before the committee for any
[1:23:01] questions or comments. And let's begin
with member Predco.
[1:23:06] » Thank you. And through you, chair. Um
just two questions on the um the zoning
[1:23:11] bylaw restrictions and and then and the
um proposals. Um the maximum GFA 190 m
[1:23:19] squared. That's the the actual maximum
amount. It's not the per percentage
[1:23:25] increase allowed. Okay. So, they're
going over the maximum. And then in
[1:23:29] terms of the maximum width, the cottage
is on a bit of an angle from the
[1:23:33] shoreline. So that is to the detriment
of this calculation. Is that correct? So
[1:23:37] does it include the deck as well? So do
we know if the what the I I'd have to
[1:23:44] look at the the report again in terms of
the width of the the dwelling
[1:23:50] square on is it is it closer to where we
need it to be?
[1:23:56] And maybe the Asian can answer that.
[1:24:12] » Okay. Okay. I mean, I I guess the only
other concerns would be then if you
[1:24:17] can't find a a suitable place for
septic, but that's a condition on the
[1:24:22] the report, so I'm fine with that. Okay,
that's all. Thank you. Thank you. Member
[1:24:27] Jarvis, do you have a question?
>> Yes. Thank you, Susan. To you, chair,
[1:24:31] quickly, um to the planner. Um I know
we're rebuilding here, but if this was a
[1:24:36] totally new build, what would be the
permitted size?
[1:24:40] » Is that the one
>> 190
[1:24:45] need that clarification? Thanks.
>> Good. Thank you. Uh member Smith,
[1:24:50] » thank you through uh chair. um on this
on this property. Uh and I and I correct
[1:24:57] me, but I thought the GFA numbers were
going away. That hasn't happened yet.
[1:25:03] Okay. But here's an example of a
property that is uh soon as you get
[1:25:08] below one acre, you drop from 275. The
arbit arbitrary numbers goes from 275
[1:25:15] right down to 190. This property is
currently sitting at 085 of an acre. So,
[1:25:21] we're like this much from what 275 would
be permitted. And I do believe and I did
[1:25:28] do a site visit again both sides of this
property. I spoke to the neighboring
[1:25:32] property to the east um west of Blooms.
They have no issue. They didn't they're
[1:25:37] pretty quiet people. They wouldn't do a
letter normally. Um
[1:25:42] but I I think because of the way it's
situated on the property, again, that is
[1:25:46] the width. same thing we ran into at the
Stokes property on um um near the fish
[1:25:52] sanctuary. So, um I think this does fit
as an improvement and it will be setting
[1:25:57] the property back significantly because
it is right on the shoreline now. Um so,
[1:26:02] that's my my comments. Thank you.
>> Any further uh questions or comments?
[1:26:10] Uh seeing none, I will uh read the
resolution.
[1:26:15] It is moved by member Matthews and
seconded by member Schmidt. Be it
[1:26:20] resolved that the Township of Georgia
Bay Committee of Adjustment approves
[1:26:22] minor variance application A26-28
to zoning bylaw 2014-75
[1:26:29] for 98 Driftwood Lane to seek relief
from the zoning bylaw to facilitate the
[1:26:34] construction of a 224.2
2 square meter detached dwelling as
[1:26:40] described in uh detail in the
application and on the resolution
[1:26:46] uh subject to the following conditions.
One, that the owner provide a property
[1:26:50] tax certificate or correspondence from
township financial services indicating
[1:26:54] that all property taxes have been paid
up to date with respect to the property
[1:26:58] that is subject to this decision. two,
that the proposed detached dwelling is
[1:27:03] substantially and proportionately in
conformity with the dimensions as set
[1:27:07] out on the application and sketches
submitted and approved by the committee.
[1:27:11] And three, that the applica applicant uh
be required to submit a landscape plan
[1:27:16] providing
uh the renaturalization of 34 square
[1:27:20] meters area within 15 meters of high
water mark to be included in a site plan
[1:27:25] agreement. and four, that the applicant
be required to submit an erosion and
[1:27:30] sediment control plan to be included in
a site plan agreement. Five, that the
[1:27:37] applicant apply for and obtain site plan
approval from the township of Georgia
[1:27:40] Bay, including if required, the
execution and registration of a site
[1:27:45] plan agreement against the title of the
lands. And six, that a qualified
[1:27:49] professional verify by pitting the
foundation wall and verifying in writing
[1:27:54] or by way of a survey. uh prior to the
pouring of the footing that no or and
[1:27:59] [clears throat] if no footing the
foundation that the attached dwelling is
[1:28:02] no closer than 13 meters from the high
water mark. And seven, that the
[1:28:08] appropriate zoning certificate and
building permit be obtained within 3
[1:28:11] years from the date of decision from the
township only after the committee's
[1:28:15] decision becomes final and binding. All
those in favor, please indicate by
[1:28:20] raising your hand.
Thank you. The motion is carried and the
[1:28:24] application is approved.
[1:28:31] Thank you, sir. And u our next minor
variance application is A26-29
[1:28:38] for 192 wild rice trail to the planner,
please.
[1:28:55] Thank you. And through you, chair. The
subject property has an area of 2.81
[1:28:59] acres with a frontage of 61.8 m onto
SixMile Lake. A detached dwelling,
[1:29:05] detached garage, dryland boat house, and
two docks currently occupy the lands.
[1:29:10] The majority of the property is
maintained in its natural state with
[1:29:12] areas of clearing occurring for the
driveway, septic system, and immediate
[1:29:16] surrounding area of the existing and
proposed development of the lands. The
[1:29:20] existing dwelling has a gross floor area
of 70.6 square meters and maintains all
[1:29:24] required yard setbacks.
The purpose and effect of the
[1:29:29] application is to seek relief from the
zoning bylaw to facilitate the
[1:29:32] construction of a dwelling addition. The
following variances are required to
[1:29:36] facilitate the construction of the
addition. an increase in lot coverage to
[1:29:40] 9.94% whereas section 6.3 table 6.2
permits a maximum lot coverage of 8%. An
[1:29:47] increase in dwelling gross floor area to
293.57
[1:29:52] m whereas section 6.3B
permits a maximum gross floor area of
[1:29:57] 275 m and an increase in dwelling width
to 19.9 m where section 6.3C
[1:30:05] permits a maximum width of 15.45 four or
five meters.
[1:30:10] Lock coverage limitations within the
shoreline residential zones are intended
[1:30:14] to achieve an appropriate balance
between natural features and built form,
[1:30:18] prevent overdevelopment, protect natural
heritage resources, and maintain the low
[1:30:22] density character of the waterfront
designation.
[1:30:25] In this case, the proposed dwelling
expansion will be largely screened from
[1:30:28] the shoreline by mature vegetation
located within both the front and side
[1:30:32] yards of the subject property and
adjacent lands. In addition, the
[1:30:36] existing detached garage, which
contributes significantly to the
[1:30:39] property's current lot coverage, is not
visible from the shoreline due to
[1:30:43] extensive vegetation buffering and the
elevation difference between the
[1:30:46] shoreline and the plateau on which the
structure is situated. The docks in the
[1:30:51] dryland boat house are the only three
structures located within the 30 meter
[1:30:54] frontyard setback.
The subject property is located within
[1:30:59] the six mile lake inland waterfront
community. Variances to the established
[1:31:03] maximum size and/or width of a dwelling
may be considered where the applicant
[1:31:06] provides evidence satisfactory to the
township that the dwelling will maintain
[1:31:10] and enhance the natural form of the
area. The visual impact of the dwelling
[1:31:15] will not be significant and is in
accordance with all other applicable
[1:31:19] policies of the plan. While the proposed
redevelopment will result in in an
[1:31:23] increase to dwelling facade, the
existing natural form of the property
[1:31:27] will be retained given the retention of
the front yard setback in its natural
[1:31:31] state. As a result, the proposed
development will continue to blend with
[1:31:35] the natural shoreline landscape and
maintain the aesthetic integrity and the
[1:31:38] established character of the community.
As illustrated by the site photo
[1:31:42] displayed, the docks and dryland boat
house continue to represent the most
[1:31:46] visually prominent forms of development
when viewed from the lake.
[1:31:51] The subject property is designated
waterfront within the townships and
[1:31:54] district's official plans. The
waterfront designation recognizes
[1:31:57] residential development, accessory uses,
and structures included shore related
[1:32:01] uses as permitted uses. The development
permitted should enhance and protect
[1:32:06] natural heritage qualities and shall be
compatible with the existing land uses
[1:32:10] in the area having regard for aesthetic
quality. Although relief is required for
[1:32:15] maximum lot coverage, dwelling gross
floor area and dwelling width
[1:32:18] provisions, the dwell development
remains appropriate in the context of
[1:32:21] the surrounding development patterns and
physical characteristics. The proposed
[1:32:25] dwelling addition can be accommodated on
the property while maintaining the
[1:32:28] minimum front yard setback without the
removal of significant natural
[1:32:32] vegetation.
The committee can either deny or approve
[1:32:37] any of the variances being requested.
The committee may also defer the
[1:32:40] application to a later date if
additional information is required to
[1:32:43] come to a decision. Planning staff have
completed a detailed analysis of the
[1:32:46] variances to the zoning bylaw being
requested and are recommending approval
[1:32:50] subject to conditions. Thank you.
>> Thank you for that. Uh madam secretary,
[1:32:56] there have been correspondence in this
application. One letter was received
[1:32:59] from Kelly Nicholson, chief building
official, stating that building permits
[1:33:02] will be required and recommending a
condition is imposed for occupancy or
[1:33:06] final inspection to be completed prior
to the issuance of a zoning certificate.
[1:33:10] And five letters of support were
received from Jack and Marne Petri,
[1:33:14] Robert and Brenda Pritchard, Mike and
Wendy Bradley, Patty and Dave Elsie, and
[1:33:19] Ted and Alen Parkinson.
>> Thank you. Uh, is the applicant or their
[1:33:25] agent present? And do they wish to
address the committee?
[1:33:35] Are you still Victoria Hoffman flow
controls
[1:33:39] three Violet Drive board sever?
>> Yeah.
[1:33:45] » So
>> yeah, it's me.
[1:33:48] » And did you have anything to add to the
planner comments?
[1:33:53] » Yeah, I mean Andrew presented it. Great.
As always, um we're asking for an
[1:33:58] additional lot coverage of a little
under 2% 1.94. We are going over the six
[1:34:04] mile GFA cap at by 18 and a half square
meters and then our width is increasing
[1:34:11] um to 19.9 or 15.4 is allowed. Um the
property owners moved up here
[1:34:18] permanently May 2025. Um the existing
one-bedroom cottage just isn't cutting
[1:34:24] it for them. Um they're also preparing
for family growth and hopefully
[1:34:29] grandkids. Um they need more storage
within the home. Um and
[1:34:35] they want to stop paying for storage
units in Wabashene. Um throughout this
[1:34:40] design, aging in place was kept in mind.
The screen porch was a really big
[1:34:43] priority as well as adequate mechanical
because now that they're living there
[1:34:47] full-time, um they just need to kind of
have a space where they can update those
[1:34:50] things. the
mechanical was the reason that our gross
[1:34:55] floor area popped over what we were
allowed. Um, and the width increased
[1:35:01] because we expanded in the three sides.
We couldn't expand to the back because
[1:35:04] of the septic system and the four and a
half meters that the width went over is
[1:35:08] basically the mscopa room. Um, Gary
Lions is here to answer any questions as
[1:35:13] well, but again here to here to answer.
>> Thank you very much. Is there any member
[1:35:19] of the public uh present or online that
wishes to address the committee on this
[1:35:23] application?
Okay, seeing none, I'll close the public
[1:35:27] portion, bring the application uh before
the committee uh for any questions or
[1:35:31] comments. And I just had one quick
question at the beginning when we're
[1:35:35] talking about um a closedin portion of
the dwelling. Is it the roof or the
[1:35:43] screening or both that adds to the GFA?
whereas an open deck would not.
[1:35:48] » It would be any area under a roof
overhang of 1.2 meters or greater from
[1:35:53] the exterior wall.
>> So screening is
[1:35:57] » screening it in or whether it be open
for an open deck, it's still included in
[1:36:01] gross floor area.
>> Okay. So just to be clear that the
[1:36:07] screening doesn't by itself obviously
you wouldn't screen it if you didn't
[1:36:11] have a roof. So, uh,
well, maybe some people would, but you
[1:36:18] had a question, members.
>> I'm not going to go down the rabbit hole
[1:36:22] of GFA. Um, because literally as soon as
you have a the slightest bit of a porch
[1:36:27] and any rules of real estate, which I
participate in, it's not included in
[1:36:33] square footage. So, but I did because I
can't help myself. Um, so I'm gonna
[1:36:39] climb back out of that rabbit hole
through chair. Oh, yes it is. I just
[1:36:43] have I'm just I'm just speaking quietly
and passionately here, but um again had
[1:36:48] a site visit on this property and
literally you have to get to the edge of
[1:36:52] the dock to be able to see up through
the tree line. Um Gary's property
[1:36:57] respectfully is pretty humble in its
current state in comparison to Wild Rice
[1:37:01] Bay. Wild Rice Bay is one of the later
lakes areas developed which have some
[1:37:06] pretty significant size and large larger
properties as well. So, anyways, had a
[1:37:10] good look at it and uh look forward to
you being on the lake full-time and
[1:37:14] getting this passed. Cheers.
>> Thank you. Any further uh questions or
[1:37:19] comments on this application? Uh seeing
none, I will read uh the resolution. It
[1:37:25] is moved by member Predco, seconded by
member Hazelton. Uh, be it resolved that
[1:37:31] the Township of Georgia Bay Committee of
Adjustment approves minor variance
[1:37:34] application A26-29
to zoning bylaw 2014-75 as amended for
[1:37:41] 192 Wild Rice Trail to facilitate the
construction of a dwelling addition as
[1:37:46] described below. One uh an in an
increase excuse me you had another
[1:37:51] question.
>> Oh, it's Dave again.
[1:37:55] Remember Matthews caution you. My humble
apologies for
[1:38:00] » Okay.
Uh as so we're looking for uh facilitate
[1:38:06] the construction of a dwelling addition
as described below. One, an increase in
[1:38:10] lot coverage to 9.94%
whereas section 63 table 6.2 permits a
[1:38:16] maximum lot coverage of 8%.
Two, an increase in dwelling gross floor
[1:38:21] area to 293.57
square meters. Whereas section 6.3.3
[1:38:27] permits a maximum gross for area of 275
square meters and an increase in the
[1:38:33] dwelling width to 19.9
m whereas section 6.3
[1:38:39] permits a maximum width of 15.45 m. The
above noted approvals are subject to the
[1:38:45] following conditions. One, that the
owner provide a property tax certificate
[1:38:49] or correspondence from Township
Financial Services, indicating that all
[1:38:53] property taxes when paid up to date with
respect to the property that's subject
[1:38:57] to this decision. And two, that the
proposed addition be substantially and
[1:39:01] proportionately in conformity with the
dimensions as set out on the application
[1:39:05] and sketches submitted and approved by
the committee. And three, that the owner
[1:39:10] obtain final occupancy for the existing
detached dwelling prior to the issuing
[1:39:15] of zoning certificate for the proposed
addition and deck. And that the
[1:39:20] appropriate zoning certificate and
building permit be obtained within three
[1:39:23] years from the date of decision from the
township only after the committee's
[1:39:28] decision becomes final and binding. All
those in favor, please indicate by
[1:39:32] raising your hand.
Thank you. The motion is carried and the
[1:39:36] application is approved.
[1:39:43] Our next uh and final application is
minor variance application A26-30
[1:39:50] for two Ireland 3150 in Georgian Bay to
the planner please.
[1:40:06] » Thank you. and through the chair.
The subject property comprises
[1:40:11] approximately 1.2 hectares of land above
the high water mark and has 178 m of
[1:40:17] frontage on Georgian Bay. The island
property is located within the Go Home
[1:40:21] Bay coastal waterfront community
situated south of Long Island and north
[1:40:26] of High Rock Island. The property is
developed with a dwelling featuring a
[1:40:29] wraparound porch, deck, a sleeping
cabin, and a dock.
[1:40:35] The purpose and effect of the
application is to seek relief from the
[1:40:38] zoning bylaw to facilitate the expansion
of the dwelling and a new septic system.
[1:40:43] The proposed dwelling has a gross floor
area of 233.68
[1:40:48] square me whereas the zoning bylaw
permits a maximum gross floor area of
[1:40:53] 200 square meters. The addition is
comprised of a screened porch, new
[1:40:58] kitchen layout, a second bathroom, a
fourth bedroom, and a covered deck.
[1:41:04] » [snorts]
>> The septic system will have a setback of
[1:41:07] 25.8 meters from 178.3 CDD whereas the
zoning by requires a minimum setback of
[1:41:13] 30 m from this contour in the go home
bay coastal waterfront community.
[1:41:22] The District of Muskoka official plan
states that development should preserve
[1:41:26] natural form and function by maintaining
shoreline integrity, retaining
[1:41:30] vegetation and tree cover, and
conserving significant natural landscape
[1:41:34] features. It also states new development
should generally exhibit a physical
[1:41:37] character that is similar to or
compatible with existing development in
[1:41:42] terms of density, lot size, maximum
building height, and minimum setbacks to
[1:41:47] ensure overall neighborhood
compatibility.
[1:41:49] A review of seven surrounding island and
shoreline properties found that
[1:41:53] dwellings have floor areas ranging from
108 to 172 square meters, not including
[1:41:58] their porches or covered decks. As these
features are included in the gross area
[1:42:03] calculation for the proposed dwelling,
the comparison is conservative and the
[1:42:06] actual gross floor areas of the surveyed
dwellings are likely larger and more
[1:42:11] comparable to the proposed dwelling.
inclusive of porches and covered decks.
[1:42:16] The proposed dwelling will have a gross
floor area just under 234 square meters.
[1:42:21] Staff are of the opinion the development
remains compatible with the character of
[1:42:25] the surrounding waterfront area as it
will maintain a singlestory form, comply
[1:42:29] with all minimum setback requirements,
and locate the expansion within the
[1:42:32] central portion of the island. The
district also requires a minimum 30 m
[1:42:37] setback from the shoreline for new
leeching beds. The proposed septic
[1:42:40] system is more than 30 meters from the
shoreline.
[1:42:47] The township official plan requires
septic systems to be located a minimum
[1:42:50] of 30 meters from the high water mark
and above the regulatory flood elevation
[1:42:55] and permits a reduction to be considered
through the implementation of a
[1:42:58] phosphorus management plan with the
intent of the policy to ensure systems
[1:43:02] are cited in locations that provide
effective phosphorus management and
[1:43:06] protect water quality. The proposed
septic system exceeds the required 30
[1:43:10] meter setback from the high water mark
and will be subject to Ontario building
[1:43:14] code requirements. The system is
proposed in substantially the same
[1:43:17] location as the existing system within
the central portion of the island where
[1:43:21] the greatest concentration of vegetation
and soils exist.
[1:43:26] The go home bay coastal waterfront
community identifies additional policies
[1:43:30] and criteria for consideration of minor
variance applications. This includes
[1:43:34] considering the size in relation to the
shoreline frontage lot area and the low
[1:43:39] density and intensity nature of the
community. The sighting of the
[1:43:42] development to minimize impact on
existing development and to provide
[1:43:46] privacy. The reduction of the visual
impact of the development from the water
[1:43:50] including but not limited to building
height and the built form guidelines.
[1:43:54] The built form guidelines specific to
dwellings include new construction and
[1:43:58] renovation shall respect the
longestablished character of development
[1:44:02] in the community and its unique sense of
place. Dwellings shall generally be
[1:44:06] limited to a maximum gross floor area of
200 square meters and 1 and a half
[1:44:10] stories or 6 m in height and may be
permitted to reach a maximum gross floor
[1:44:14] area of 265 square meters with the
permission through the minor variance
[1:44:18] process in accordance with the
community's goals and objectives.
[1:44:22] In evaluating the proposal against the
criteria for minor variances,
[1:44:26] consideration has been given to the size
of the dwelling relative to the lot
[1:44:29] frontage, lot area, and the low density,
low inensity character of the community.
[1:44:34] The one-story addition is centrally
located on the island, maximizing
[1:44:38] shoreline setbacks and minimizing vis,
excuse me, visibility from Georgian Bay
[1:44:42] and neighboring properties. The
resulting gross floor area of 233.68 68
[1:44:47] m remains below the 265 square meter
maximum generally contemplated through
[1:44:52] minor varian process. The proposal
maintains the existing architectural
[1:44:56] character through the use of wood siding
and a steel roof while mature vegetation
[1:45:00] and granite outcrops provide natural
screening. Overall the proposal
[1:45:04] maintains the intent of the built form
policies by limiting visual impacts and
[1:45:09] preserving the established wilderness
cottage character of the go home bay
[1:45:12] community.
[1:45:16] The subject lands are zone go home bay
shoreline residential island or SR
[1:45:21] excuse me SRI3.
Aside from gross floor area, the
[1:45:25] dwelling exceeds all other requirements
of the zone. Considering the modest
[1:45:29] increase in gross floor area requested
and the retention of generous shoreline
[1:45:32] setbacks, low coverage, and the existing
building height, the proposal is
[1:45:37] considered consistent with the intent of
the provisions of the community.
[1:45:41] Specific to the community, a minimum
setback of 30 meters from 178.3 CGD is
[1:45:47] required for septic systems. Achieving
this setback would require the septic
[1:45:51] system to be relocated to the west side
of the island. As stated by chief
[1:45:55] building official, the proposed
replacement septic system location is
[1:45:59] reasonable as it is situated within the
area containing the majority of the
[1:46:03] existing vegetation on the island which
is otherwise predominantly exposed
[1:46:06] granite. The proposed system maintains
the required 30 m setback from the 178.3
[1:46:12] contour along the north side of the
island with relief requested only for a
[1:46:16] reduced setback of 25.8 m in the
southeast portion. The proposal meets
[1:46:22] the intent of the zoning bylaw by
replacing excuse me by facilitating the
[1:46:26] replacement and upgrading of an existing
septic system while maintaining the
[1:46:30] greatest feasible shoreline setback
given the site's physical constraints.
[1:46:34] The replacement system is expected to
improve phosphorus management, protect
[1:46:38] water quality, reduce the potential for
environmental impacts, and support the
[1:46:43] long-term functionality and
sustainability of on-site sewage
[1:46:46] services.
[1:46:51] Here are photos of the island taken from
the north and the northeast.
[1:46:59] On the left is a photo taken on the
northwest side of the island and on the
[1:47:03] right is a photo of the vegetation where
the septic system is proposed.
[1:47:12] The photo on the left was taken next to
the dwelling facing the dock on the
[1:47:16] northeast side of the island which is
pictured in the second photo.
[1:47:24] Planning staff conducted a detailed
analysis based on the applicable test
[1:47:27] stems of planning act outlined in the
associated report and are recommending
[1:47:30] approval subject to conditions. The
committee of adjustment can either
[1:47:34] approve any one of the variances or deny
with reasons. The committee can defer
[1:47:38] the application to a later date if
additional information is required to
[1:47:42] come to a decision. Thank you.
>> Thank you very much, Madam Secretary.
[1:47:46] There have been correspondence in this
application. One letter was received
[1:47:50] from Kelly Nicholson, chief building
official, stating concern that the
[1:47:53] proposed septic system has not been
reviewed in detail and that its
[1:47:56] suitability can only be confirmed
through a sight specific design reviewed
[1:48:00] for compliance with the Ontario building
code. And one letter of support was
[1:48:03] received from the Madavosa Club of Go
Home Bay voicing support for requested
[1:48:07] variances.
[1:48:11] It looks like there's Kaylee might have
a comment to make. I guess the
[1:48:17] » Would you tell her to go
>> through the chair? The comments have
[1:48:20] since been updated.
>> Okay, thank you. U appreciate that.
[1:48:28] Uh is the applicant present? Uh is there
a Fred Belffor in the audience?
[1:48:37] » Please step forward and identify
yourself for the record.
[1:48:43] Andrew Ashcraftoft 4013 912 Cold Water.
This is Frederick Belffor.
[1:48:54] » Frederick Balfur Island 3150.
Go home bay.
[1:48:59] » Thank you. And do you have anything to
add to the planner's comment so far?
[1:49:05] » Uh I can add to a couple things. The
everything was very clear from them. We
[1:49:10] do currently have a uh the septic bed
that's failing there. It was reinspected
[1:49:15] last year and was booked for
reinspection. So, we do have to do
[1:49:19] something no matter what to to bring it
up to modern standards. Uh there's one
[1:49:25] tree in the middle of the septic ped
which is acting as the weepers. So, it's
[1:49:29] going to have to come down. Uh and
respectfully, Frederick does is very
[1:49:34] conscious of trees. Uh he will be
planting trees to replace any that are
[1:49:39] removed.
Um the height also I know we have the
[1:49:45] 25.8 meter setback we so the height of
the base of the septic has to be 178.4
[1:49:52] also
uh in the Madawaska club our base height
[1:49:57] of the septic bed is lower than the rock
crop down both the west and the east
[1:50:04] side. So the actual distance uh to the
south I guess would be 44.2 m.
[1:50:12] » Yeah. Just I'll hold you in there. The
the the design and implement
[1:50:17] implementation of the septic system is
not uh a matter of this application and
[1:50:22] it's really nothing that the community
of adjustment deals with. So it's more
[1:50:27] uh you know the heights and the setback
and that sort of thing. So if there any
[1:50:30] comments in that area, please go ahead.
Okay.
[1:50:36] Yeah. Okay.
>> The addition is I guess the only other
[1:50:38] thing is the addition we're adding on.
It's matches the building and he's
[1:50:42] conscious his family's been there for
100 years. He's maintaining
[1:50:46] maintaining the character of the
original building and adding they want
[1:50:49] to have a later season there before he
back home.
[1:50:53] » Very good. Anything you wish to add, Mr.
Bur?
[1:50:57] only that I just checked my my account
[1:51:03] twice. I'm afraid you [laughter]
you
[1:51:09] » that's not a that's not a private.
>> Okay. We'd like to thank you for that.
[1:51:16] » Thank you, Chairman Hill.
>> Okay. Uh is there any member of the
[1:51:20] public present that wishes to address
the committee on this application? Okay.
[1:51:24] Seeing none, I will
uh read the resolution.
[1:51:31] It is
moved uh by member [clears throat]
[1:51:35] Matthew, seconded by member Smith.
[1:51:50] Oh,
>> should we start over then?
[1:51:54] Is there anybody on the committee that
wishes to uh provide a question or
[1:52:01] something?
>> All right, seeing none.
[1:52:06] » Member Jarvis, please go ahead.
>> Thank you chair. Um just some quick
[1:52:09] questions that one. I'm always happy to
see the cars associations uh put their
[1:52:14] two cents in on these things. the
college associations particularly up and
[1:52:17] down the bay um are very important um
provide important input on these things.
[1:52:23] So I'm happy to see that out of go home.
Um and just a couple curious questions
[1:52:28] and I don't think they really pertain to
whether I approve or disapprove of this.
[1:52:31] Um are you already partaking in some
renovations on the main main house
[1:52:36] itself?
>> Yes, we are.
[1:52:40] » Okay. And there's a pile of dirt in one
of the questions. Is that one of the
[1:52:43] pictures rather? Is that a pile of dirt
relevant to the septic or to the
[1:52:49] addition you're proposing?
[1:52:54] [clears throat]
[1:53:00] » Mr. Balf, if I could just point out when
the microphone is live, the red lights
[1:53:04] on.
>> You see that? So if you don't and so
[1:53:09] I'll say that again the the soil was
barged in because I am planting on the
[1:53:15] north side with the intention of
creating more of a screen to the
[1:53:20] cottages that face to the north than
then than than exists.
[1:53:25] » Yeah. I mean we we I think we all
understand I particularly understand the
[1:53:29] nature of the islands up that way. So
just curious. Thank you very much.
[1:53:33] » Okay. Thank you. Any further questions
or comments? That member Matthews.
[1:53:39] » Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I had the
privilege of visiting Mr. Balffor a
[1:53:43] couple of days ago on the island. Um,
the location for the addition makes
[1:53:48] perfect sense. I don't think anybody
will even see it. It's nicely stepped
[1:53:51] down about three or four. And I know the
septic isn't part of this, but there
[1:53:55] seems to be a natural crevice part for
it as well. So, I don't have any problem
[1:54:00] with this application. And I agree with
Mr. Jarvis. It's always nice to get a
[1:54:04] cottage association to chime in on on
the good side of things, right? So,
[1:54:09] thank you.
>> And [clears throat] just one final
[1:54:12] question I would ask. Is it the uh the
closed in porch that puts us uh that
[1:54:18] accounts for that 33 additional square
meters of uh GFA?
[1:54:24] » The addition. Okay. So, that roof
overhang. All right. Well, thank you
[1:54:29] Matthews for clarification.
>> Okay. Uh if there are no further
[1:54:33] questions or comments, I will read the
resolution. It is moved by uh member
[1:54:38] Matthews and uh seconded by member
Schmidt. Be it resolved that the
[1:54:43] township of Georgia Bay Community of
Adjustment hereby approves the following
[1:54:46] variances requested under minor variance
application A26-30.
[1:54:51] One that dwelling have a gross floor
area of 233.68
[1:54:55] square meters whereas section 7.3.2 two
of the zoning bylaw permits a maximum
[1:55:02] gross floor area of 200 square meters
and two that a septic system having a
[1:55:07] setback of 25.8 m from 178.3
uh CGD whereas section 4.27 27 of the
[1:55:16] zoning bylaw requires a maximum setback
of 30 meters from 178.3
[1:55:23] uh CGD in the Go Home Bay coastal
waterfront community and subject to the
[1:55:29] following conditions. One, that the
owner provide a property tax certificate
[1:55:33] or correspondence from Township
Financial Services indicating that all
[1:55:36] property taxes have been paid up to date
with respect to the property that is
[1:55:40] subject to this decision. and two, that
the proposed development is
[1:55:44] substantially and proportionately and
conformally with the dimensions as set
[1:55:47] on the application and sketches
submitted and approved by the committee.
[1:55:51] And three, that the appropriate zoning
certificate and building permit be
[1:55:55] obtained within three years from the
date of decision from the township only
[1:55:59] after the committee's decision becomes
final and binding and a minor variance
[1:56:03] agreement has been registered. All those
in favor, please indicate by raising
[1:56:08] your hand.
Thank you. The motion is carried and the
[1:56:12] application is approved.
>> Thank you so much committee members for
[1:56:18] providing your time. I know it's Friday
afternoon and everyone wants to get
[1:56:21] going. So, thank you.
>> Thank you very much.
[1:56:26] » Um
[1:56:30] I'd like to thank everyone for the
participation in in the uh today's
[1:56:35] public hearing.
And we have uh one final resolution
[1:56:39] where it's moved by member Matthews and
seconded by member Jarvis. Be it
[1:56:44] resolved that the township of Georgia
Bay committee of a judgment does uh
[1:56:49] adjourn at 11:51
on uh
[1:56:55] today's date until September 18, 2026 at
10 a.m. or at the call of the chair. All
[1:57:01] those in favor, please signify by
raising your hand. Thank you. The motion
[1:57:06] is carried and the member is adjourned.
Thank you all for coming up.
[1:57:12] » Thank you everyone.