April 18, 2006
REPORT TO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
COMMITTEE
SUBJECT: PRELIMINARY REPORT
Application by Dudley Kissoore to amend the Official Plan at 68
Cachet Parkway from
the Rural Residential to the Urban Residential designation
PLAN 5316 LOT 4
CONTACT/AUTHOR: Geoff Day, Planner
- East Development Team
APPLICATION #: OP 06 106110
RECOMMENDATION:
That the
application submitted by Dudley Kissoore
to re-designate 68 Cachet Parkway from Rural Residential to Urban Residential
in order to permit the severance and subsequent creation of an additional
residential lot be denied.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Not applicable
FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS:
Not applicable
|
|
|
|
|
Valerie Shuttleworth, M.C.I.P, R.P.P
Director, Planning & Urban Design
|
|
Jim
Baird, M.C.I.P, R.P.P
Commissioner, Development Services
|
Property
and Area Context
The subject property has an area
of 0.61ha (1.5 acres), located south of Major
MacKenzie Drive within the Cachet Estates
subdivision. The Owner is proposing to
amend the Official Plan by re-designating 68
Cachet Parkway from Rural Residential to
Urban Residential (See Figure 1).
The subject property is subject
to the Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority’s Fill Line Extension Area and the Regional Storm
Floodplain of the Rouge River.
There is a tributary of the Rouge River
which traverses the westerly portion of the subject property. The TRCA
determines the necessary setbacks from the watercourse and any significant
vegetation adjacent to the watercourse before any development can occur (An Air
Photo is attached as Figure 3).
Official Plan designates the property Rural Residential
68
Cachet Parkway is designated Rural Residential in
the Official Plan. The General Rural Residential Policies, Section 3.12.1 state
that “The predominant use of land designated Rural Residential shall be for
residential dwellings on lots of sufficient size as to essentially retain the
rural character of the surrounding area.” Furthermore, Section 3.12.2 (g)
states that “Rural residential development shall be on the basis of large lots
of varying sizes to suit the topography, but shall not be less than 0.4 ha (1
acre) in area. Each lot shall be serviced by a private well and a septic tank
or other acceptable means.”
Zoning by-law
The subject property is zoned RRE
(Rural Residential Estate) under By-law 304-87, as amended. The minimum lot area requirement is 0.4 ha (1
acre) and the minimum lot frontage requirement is 36.5m (120 ft) (See Figure
2).
Land Severance and Minor Variances refused
On December 14, 2005 the
Committee of Adjustment denied an application by the Owner to sever and convey
68 Cachet Parkway into two lots with areas of 0.33 ha (0.8 acre) and 0.28 ha
(0.7 acre) respectively (application B/42/05).
Planning staff did not support the application for a number of
reasons. Staff explained in a memo to
the committee that although the minimum lot frontage requirements would have
been maintained, the proposed severance did not maintain the intent of the
Official Plan requirements that residential parcels in the Rural Residential
designation be a minimum area of 0.4 ha (1 acre). As noted in the Official Plan
section of this report, Section 3.12.1 states that the Rural Residential
designation shall provide “for sufficiently large lots to retain the rural
character of the surrounding area.” The
minimum 0.4 ha lot area is required to allow for the appropriate siting and design of dwellings, which will create a
harmonious relationship within the existing neighbourhood.
The Planning Act states that four tests must be met in order
for a variance to be granted by the Committee of Adjustment:
(a) The variance
must be minor in nature;
(b) The variance must be desirable, in the
opinion of the Committee of Adjustment, for the appropriate development or use
of the land, building or structure;
(c) The general intent and purpose of the
Zoning By-law must be maintained;
(d) The general intent and purpose of the
Official Plan must be maintained.
It was also the opinion of
planning staff that the applications for minor variances for a minimum lot area
of 0.33 ha on the severed parcel and 0.28 ha on the retained parcel did not
maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan policies which
specify the need for a minimum lot area of 0.4 ha to maintain the rural
character of the neighbourhood (applications A/153/05 & A/154/05). The applications for minor variances did not
maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law requirement for a
minimum lot area of 0.4 hectares (1 acre).
Planning staff were also of the opinion that the requested variances
were not minor in nature, as the proposed lot areas represented a reduction by
almost 20% and 30% and were not in keeping with lot sizes of surrounding
properties in the area. The proposed lot
areas cannot be considered appropriate development for the subject property
because of the requirement for a new septic system, protection of the creek and
natural vegetation, and the need to maintain the rural character and compatibility
with the surrounding neighbourhood.
This Official Plan Amendment
application has been filed in response to staff noting that the severance and
minor variances did not comply with the Official Plan or the four tests of the
Planning Act.
The applicant
has appealed the Committee of Adjustments decision on the severance and
variance applications
On December 30, 2005 the
applicant’s solicitor sent correspondence to the Town advising that the Owner
had filed appeals to the Ontario Municipal Board under Sections 53(19) and
45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P13, as amended. The correspondence letters sited numerous
grounds for the appeals (See Figures 6-8).
ISSUES/CONCERNS:
Neighbourhood Analysis
Regard has to be given to the
compatibility of the proposed amendment and its potential effect on the
surrounding neighbourhood. A review of the surrounding properties was
undertaken and it was noted that all properties but 81 Cachet Parkway (0.38
hectare (0.98 acre) located on the corner of Major Mackenzie Drive) have lot
areas greater than 0.4 hectares (1 acre). Applying the Urban Residential
designation and lot size standards to one individual lot would create an
inconsistent density, outside the prevailing character of the neighbourhood
which consists of large lots with significant open space and natural vegetation
(See Figure 4).
Full “urban” services not available
Section 6.2 b) of the Official
Plan outlines criteria in which urban development shall occur. “Urban development will only be permitted in
areas which can be adequately serviced by municipal services, including fire
protection, piped water and sanitary sewers.”
Section 6.2 h) of the Official Plan outlines development criteria for
rural areas. “In rural areas, permitted
development shall be serviced by wells and septic tanks subject to the approval
of the appropriate authorities and shall provide for, or be in accordance with,
a drainage plan for the area.” The
Cachet Estates subdivision is in the process of being serviced with Municipal
water supply, but at the present time is to remain serviced entirely by private
septic systems. Re-designating 68
Cachet Parkway to the Urban Residential
designation would not be appropriate as urban municipal services are not fully available
in this rural residential neighbourhood.
Private septic systems require larger lot sizes in the order of the
current lot area of the property.
The re-designation would create
an opportunity for land severance out of character in an area context. Staff are of the
opinion that an additional single family dwelling constructed on a severed
parcel would not be compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood. The rural residential character of the area
would be impacted by an additional dwelling resulting in a loss of yard
space. Protection of the creek and
natural vegetation may also be compromised.
Staff are also of the opinion that the proposed
reduction in lot sizes would create a precedent which would compromise the
Official Plan objectives to retain the rural residential character of the area.
Conclusion
It is the opinion of Planning
Staff that re-designating 68 Cachet Parkway
to Urban Residential and permitting the proposed severance would represent a
degree of intensification which is not in keeping with lot sizes of surrounding
properties in the area nor with the Town’s planning
policies and regulations for the area. There is a need to maintain the rural
residential character of this neighbourhood and therefore Staff cannot support
the application. The proposal is
scheduled for an Ontario Municipal Board hearing commencing June 7, 2006, and there is agreement between the
Town Solicitor and the applicant’s Solicitor to have all matters (including the
Official Plan Application) consolidated at the same hearing. The Town will be opposing the severance,
variance and Official Plan Applications.
Since the proposal has been considered in public session at the
Committee of Adjustment, and is to be considered by the Ontario Municipal Board
in public session commencing June 7, it is not felt to be necessary to hold a
separate public meeting on the Official Plan application at this time.
BUSINESS UNITS CONSULTED AND AFFECTED:
The proposal is currently in circulation to other Town Departments
and agencies for review and comments.
ATTACHMENTS:
Figure 1 - Applicant/Agent +
Location Map
Figure 2 - Area
Context/Zoning
Figure 3 -
Aerial Photo
Figure 4 -
Context Lotting Map
Figure 5 -
Site plan showing proposed severance
Figure 7 -
Minor Variance appeal letter A/153/05
Figure 8 -
Minor Variance appeal letter A/154/05
Applicant
Contact Information:
Joanne Barnett MCIP RPP
6 Dunkirk Rd
Toronto ON
M4C
2L9