Location and Property

There are two areas in the Town that are zoned Rural Residential Estate by By-law 304-87, as amended. The Carolwood area, which is located east of Markham Road north of 14^th Avenue, and the Cachet Parkway, Jennings Gate, Glenbourne Park and Heritage Hill area, which is located in the Major Mackenzie Road, Woodbine Avenue and Warden Avenue area. Also included in the area affected by the proposed Official Plan amendment is a portion of a property on Kennedy Road. The Kennedy Road lands are approximately 0.84 hectares (2.1 acres) on the west side of Kennedy Road, about 1,100 metres north of Major MacKenzie.

Carolwood Crescent Area

This area is approximately 16.23 hectares (40.1 acres). It is located east of Markham Road, north of 14^th Avenue and south of the 407. The lands include properties on Carolwood Crescent, Lindholm Crescent, Palatin Court and the east side of Chatelaine Drive (Plan 5937). It consists of approximately 33 lots, which range in size from approximately 0.4 hectares (0.99 acres) to 0.7 hectares (1.73 acres). The area is well established, fully developed, and primarily comprised of estate type low density residential properties. (See Figure 1.)

The area is designated Urban Residential in the Official Plan. The Rouge North Planning District Secondary Plan already contains policies that regulate minimum lot areas. Consequently, the proposed changes to the Official Plan do not need to be applied to this area. The Rouge North Planning District Secondary Plan requires the lots subject to the proposed By-law amendment (see Figure 3) to have a minimum lot areas of 0.4 hectares. This applies to the homes with municipal street addresses 3 to 39 (inclusive) on Carolwood Crescent, and 58, 62 and 68 Chatelaine Drive, and all the homes on Palatin Court. The three lots on Lindholm Avenue are owned by the Ontario Realty Corporation. This land is designated Transportation and Utilities by the Rouge North Planning District Secondary Plan. The proposed changes to the Official Plan will not apply to these three lots either.

This area is zoned RRE – Rural Residential Estate, by By-law 304-87, as amended. The proposed changes to the zoning By-law, combined side yard setbacks of at least 9 metres (29.52 feet), will apply to this area. Based on information taken from aerial photos, staff estimate that four existing homes may not comply with the proposed setback, and may become legal non-conforming, with respect to this provision.

Cachet Parkway, Jennings Gate, Glenbourne Park Drive, Heritage Hill area and a Kennedy Road property

This area is approximately 223.4 hectares (552 acres). It is located north of Major MacKenzie Drive between the Ontario Hydro Electric Power Corridor and Warden Avenue and south of Major MacKenzie from Woodbine Avenue to east of Warden Avenue. The lands include homes in the Jennings Gate subdivision (on the north side of Major MacKenzie), the homes in Cachet (on the south side of Major MacKenzie), and homes on Glenbourne Park Drive. (Plans 5316, 6897, 65M-2385; See Figure 2.) It consists of approximately 394 lots, which range in size from approximately 0.3 hectares (0.74 acres) to 1.19 hectares (2.9 acres). The average lot size is approximately 0.48 hectares (1.19 acres). The area is well established, fully developed, having being developed over a number of years, all under the same zoning By-law. It is primarily comprised of estate type low density residential properties, with generous setbacks compared to other residential development in the Town. There are a few vacant lots, scattered throughout the area. Municipal water supply is being made available to this area. However, sanitary service is not available. (See Figure 2.)

This area is designated Rural Residential in the Official Plan, and the proposed changes to Official Plan will apply to this area. This area is zoned RRE – Rural Residential Estate, by By-law 304-87, as amended, and the proposed changes to the zoning by-law will also apply to this area. Based on information taken from aerial photos, staff estimate that at most 37 existing homes may not comply with the proposed setback, and may become legal non-conforming, with respect to this provision.

The Kennedy Road property is about a 0.84 hectare (2.1 acre) portion of a property on the west side of Kennedy Road about 1,100 metres north of Major MacKenzie. The proposed Official Plan amendment will apply to this property. However, the lands are zoned RR2 – Rural Residential Two, by By-law 304-87, as amended. Therefore, the proposed zoning provision will not apply to this property.

The Ontario Municipal Board denial of a severance, variance and an Official Plan amendment prompted a review of the Town’s Official Plan policies and zoning By-law provisions

In December 2005 the Town’s Committee of Adjustment heard an application for a property on Cachet Parkway for a provisional consent to sever and convey a parcel of land for a new single detached dwelling. (File B/42/05) Applications for minor variance to reduce the required lot sizes from 0.4 hectares (0.99 acres) to 0.33 hectares (0.82 acres) and 0.28 hectares (0.69 acres) were also heard at the same time. (Files A/153/05 and A/154/05.)

Planning staff did not support approval of the consent and variance applications. The Committee of Adjustment agreed with staff’s conclusions and denied the applications. These applications were subsequently appealed to the OMB.

An Official Plan amendment application was filed in January 2006 in response to the staff opinion and Committee of Adjustment decision that the proposed severance and variances did not conform to the Official Plan. Council, at its meeting on April 25 2006, denied the application to amend the Official Plan. The consent, variance and Official Plan amendment applications appeals were consolidated and heard together in one OMB hearing in the fall of 2006.

The OMB in its decision issued October 30, 2006 found that the proposed Official Plan amendment did not represent good planning, and was not in the public interest and the appeal was dismissed. With respect to the consent the board found insufficient regard for the Planning Act Criteria provisions, specifically conformity to the Official Plan and the dimensions and shape of the proposed lot, so that appeal was also dismissed. Therefore, the Board did not authorize the variances.

Even though the Ontario Municipal Board confirmed the Town’s opinion and denied the severance, variance and Official Plan amendment, a review of the Town’s Official Plan policies and zoning By-law provisions was considered prudent. This is to ensure that the Official Plan policies and zoning clearly articulate Council’s intent that new construction in the Estate Residential areas must be compatible with the existing neighbourhood character.

Proposed Official Plan Modifications

Part of the appellant planner’s argument before the OMB in support of the reduced lot area, was that the requirement for the 0.4 hectare minimum lot area was directly related to the requirement that each property has to be serviced by a private well and septic system or other acceptable means. There are two clauses in the Official Plan related to the minimum lot size and the requirement for a septic system. They are as follows:

1. Sub-section 3.12.2 (g):

“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 septic tank or other acceptable means.”

2. Sub-section 3.12.4 (a):

“The design of rural residential subdivisions shall provide for a range of lot sizes directly related to the site’s topography, vegetation, soil and drainage characteristics, the governing criteria being to retain a semi-rural character in development and discourage urban density forms. As a minimal requirement for each lot, sufficient area shall be set aside for the installation and operation of two (2) septic tile beds; additionally no lot shall have an area of less than 0.4 ha (1 acre).”

The minimum lot area and the requirement for a septic system are mentioned together in these two sub-sections of the Official Plan. In the past there may have been a technical relationship between lot area and septic system requirements (to ensure there is sufficient area for the septic tile beds). However, it is clear that the minimum lot area provisions in the Official plan are also included for other equally, if not more important reasons, such as preserving the open space character of the neighbourhood, and retaining the rural residential character. Through the course of the Ontario Municipal Board hearing it became clear that the Official Plan wording of these two requirements (minimum lot areas and septics) should be separated. Staff recommend that the wording on the Official Plan be revised to clarify this distinction.

The following two changes to the Official Plan are recommended. Sub-section 3.12.2 (g) should be deleted and replaced with two new sub-sections, as follows:

“g) 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.

h) Each lot shall be serviced by a private well and septic tank or other acceptable means.”

Sub-section 3.12.4 (a) should be deleted and replaced with two new sub-sections, as follows:

“a) The design of rural residential subdivisions shall provide for a range of lot sizes [with no lot having an area of less than 0.4 hectares (0.99 acres)] related to the site’s topography, vegetation, soil and drainage characteristics, the governing criteria being to retain a rural character in development and discourage urban density forms.

b) Sufficient lot area shall be set aside for the installation and operation of two (2) septic tile beds.”

Uncoupling the minimum lot area and septic system requirements, by separating them into different sub-sections, will clarify Council’s intent that the lots in these areas should be at least 0.4 hectares (0.99 acres) in area, despite the fact that homes with septic systems could be built on lots with areas less than 0.4 hectares (0.99 acres).

These proposed changes to the Official Plan, outlined above, do not need to be applied to the Carolwood area. The Rouge North Planning District Secondary Plan already requires minimum lot areas of 0.4 hectares.

The Cachet Parkway, Jennings Gate, Glenbourne Park, Heritage Hill area, and a Kennedy Road property are designated Rural Residential in the Official Plan, and the proposed changes to Official Plan, outlined above, will apply to these areas.

Proposed Zoning By-law Modifications

In the Rural Residential Estate (RRE) zone in By-law 304-87, as amended the minimum required side yard setback is 3.0 metres (9.84 feet). The majority of the existing homes in the RRE areas have been built with at least one side yard greater than this minimum.

To determine a more appropriate setback, reflective of the existing community character, staff considered increasing the minimum side yard setback from 3.0 metres (9.84 feet) to 4.0 metres (13.12 feet). (This review used aerial photos of the building envelopes and overlays of property fabric mapping.) Using this data, staff estimate that increasing the minimum side yard setback from 3.0 metres (9.84 feet) to 4.0 metres (13.12 feet) will result in approximately 100 of the 400 properties not complying.

However, using aerial photos, staff noted that many of the properties do have side yard greater than 4.5 metres (14.76 feet), and that the combined widths of the side yards on a lot are typically greater than 9.0 metres (29.52 feet). Consequently, planning staff recommend that the required minimum side yard remain as 3.0 metres (9.84 feet), and that an additional provision be added to the development standards for the RRE zone, in By-law 304-87, as amended. This additional provision will require a minimum combined side yard setbacks of 9.0 metres (29.52 feet).

The wording proposed for this provision is as follows:

“In addition, the sum of the width of the both side yards shall not be less than 9 metres.”

A review of air photos and Building Department records suggest that there may be a small percentage of existing homes that will be rendered legal non-conforming, should Council decide to approve a By-law that requires minimum combined side yard setbacks of 9 metres (29.52 feet). Staff estimate that at most 10% of the homes may be rendered legal non-conforming if a combined 9 metre (29.52 feet) side yard setback is required. However, staff anticipate that in most instances new construction will be able to comply with the proposed setback, and generally satisfy the desires of the owner.

Public Meeting

A Public Meeting to obtain public input on the proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments was held on June 19, 2007. An extract of the minutes of the Public Meeting is attached as Appendix ‘C’.

· Comments from a Cachet area resident

One resident from the Cachet area spoke at the Public Meeting. (See Appendix ‘D’.) She proposed the following provisions be included in the zoning By-law:

a) Minimum side yard setbacks of 10.67 metres (35 feet);

b) Maximum lot coverage of 405m² (4,356 ft²); and

c) Maximum 2 storeys.

· Letters from Carolwood area residents

Prior to the Public Meeting nine letters from 7 properties, affected by the proposed changes to the zoning By-law, were received. (See Appendix ‘E’.) These letters do not support amending the By-law to add a provision that requires minimum combined side yard setbacks of 8.0 metres. Letters not in support of the proposal were also received from 61, 69 and 73 Chatelaine Drive. The proposed change to the zoning By-law do not apply to these three the properties. They are zoned Suburban Residential One (SUR1) by By-law 90-81, as amended.

In July 2007, following the Public Meeting, the Clerk received 12 letters (from 6 properties in the Carolwood Crescent area) in favour of the proposal to increase the minimum side yard setback as proposed. (See Appendix ‘F’.)

Public Information Meeting for Residents of the Carolwood Crescent area

Following the Public Meeting, staff and the local Councillor held a Public Information meeting for the residents of the Carolwood Crescent area, whose properties will be subject to the proposed zoning provisions. Invitations to attend the meeting were sent to all thirty-three property owners in the Carolwood Crescent area. Three people, from two of the homes in the area, attended the meeting. They did not object to the proposed zoning provision.

OPTIONS/ DISCUSSION:

The proposal put forward, by a Cachet area resident, at the Public Meeting, to increase the minimum side yard, cap lot coverage and limit the number of stories, in the Cachet area was considered by Staff

a) Minimum side yard setbacks of 10.67 metres (35 feet);

Using aerial photos of building envelopes and overlays of property fabric mapping, staff conclude that approximately 299 of the 374 homes, in the Cachet Parkway, Jennings Gate, Glenbourne Park and Heritage Hill area will be rendered legal non-conforming, if the minimum side yard setback is increased from 3 metres to 10.67 metres.

b) Maximum lot coverage of 405m² (4,356 ft²);

Using aerial photos of building envelopes, staff estimate that approximately 100 of the 374 of the homes in the Cachet Parkway, Jennings Gate, Glenbourne Park and Heritage Hill area already exceed a lot coverage of 405m², and will be rendered legal non-conforming, if a maximum 405m² lot coverage requirement is imposed.

Planning Department staff are concerned about amending the By-law to require a 10.67 metre side yard setback and a 405m² maximum lot coverage. Staff estimate that only 58 of the approximately 374 homes in the Cachet Parkway, Jennings Gate, Glenbourne Park and Heritage Hill area will comply with a minimum 10.67 metre side yard setback and a 405m² maximum lot coverage.

c) Maximum 2 storeys;

The maximum building height permitted by the Rural Residential Estate zoning in By-law 304-87, as amended is 10.7 metres (35.1 feet). (Height is measured from established grade to the highest point of a flat roof, or the mean level between eaves and ridge of a pitched roof.)

A typical 2 storey pitched roof home, with a finished first floor approximately one metre above finished grade, will have a height of about 9 metres (29.53 feet). A three storey home can be built with a height equal to or less than 10.7 metres, but typically it will require unusual grades, and/or a flat roof.

In the Cachet Parkway, Jennings Gate, Glenbourne Park and Heritage Hill area a three storey dwelling could potentially be achieved without an adverse impact on neighbouring homes, the streetscape, and the character of the community. Given the size of lots, spacing between homes, and the 10.7 metre height limit a 2 storey restriction is not likely an effective means to regulate re-development. Staff are of the opinion that the existing 10.7 metre maximum height restriction is the best way to manage the height of the homes in this area, and that a 2 storey maximum requirement is redundant.

Insufficient records exist to determine how many homes in the Cachet Parkway, Jennings Gate, Glenbourne Park and Heritage Hill would be legal non-conforming if a maximum two-storey provision is added to the By-law.

Minor Variance implications

Should the three provisions proposed, by the Cachet area resident, at the Public Meeting be added to the zoning, staff anticipate that there would be a number of minor variance applications seeking relief from these requirements for new construction or to recognize existing non-conformities. These applications, like all applications for Minor Variances, will be assessed against the four tests of the Planning Act. The four tests, that must be met in order for a variance to be granted by the Committee of Adjustment, are:

a) The variance must be minor in nature (e.g. will the proposal cause no adverse impact, or is not too large);

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 (e.g. is the proposal compatible in its surroundings);

c) The general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law must be maintained (e.g. does the proposal meet the objective of the development standard); and

d) The general intent and purpose of the Official Plan must be maintained (e.g. what is the effect on the long terms goals of the Official Plan).

Given the development pattern of the existing homes, streetscape, and neighbourhood it is conceivable that variances to these three standards (minimum 10.7 metre side yard, lot coverage cap of 405 m², and maximum two stories) will routinely pass the four Planning Act tests.

Based on the discussion above regarding the number of homes that will likely become legal non-conforming, and the conclusion that there would be a number of variances routinely approved by the Committee of Adjustment, staff are concerned that the imposition of these standards would only add to the regulatory regime, without changing the pattern of development in the area.

Carolwood Crescent area

The Rouge North Planning District Secondary Plan, which applies to the Carolwood Crescent area, requires the lots, subject to the proposed By-law amendment, to have a minimum lot area of 0.4 hectares. Consequently, an Official Plan amendment is not being proposed for the Carolwood area.

With a minimum 0.4 hectare lot area prescribed in the Secondary Plan it is unlikely that applications to sever these properties will be supported by staff, unless the owner obtains an exception to the Rouge North Planning District Secondary Plan. Should an application to amend the Rouge North Planning District Secondary Plan, to allow lots less than 0.4 hectares, be approved, it will likely only be for a specific re-development proposal.

If a specific re-development proposal is endorsed by Council new development standards will be considered, and appropriate requirements incorporated into a site specific zoning By-law or minor variances, at that time. Therefore, the imposition of the proposed 9 metre (29.52 foot) combined side yard setback will not be an impediment to appropriate re-development on smaller lots, but will ensure that new construction on existing lots is compatible with, and respectful of the existing homes in the area.

Considering the objective of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law review, the Official Plan refinements and new Zoning By-law provisions proposed by staff are most appropriate

Given that the objective of the proposal (refining the Official Plan policies and adding zoning By-law provisions) is to introduce policies and provisions, that reflect current land use patterns into the Town’s Official Plan and By-law 304-87, as amended, staff are of the opinion that:

· the additional zoning By-law provisions proposed by a resident, at the Public Meeting, (minimum 10.67 metre side yard, maximum 405m² lot coverage, and maximum two stories) are not appropriate;

· that the additional zoning By-law provision proposed by the Town (combined side yard setbacks of 9.0 metres) is appropriate for the Carolwood and Cachet areas; and

· the refinements to the Official Plan policies that apply to the Cachet Parkway, Jennings Gate, Glenbourne Park, Heritage Hill area, and the Kennedy Road property are appropriate.

FINANCIAL TEMPLATE: