Unionville Sub-Committee
July 20, 2010
11:30 a.m. – 12:30 p.m.
Canada Room
Attendance:
|
Members: Regional
Councillor Joseph Virgilio Councillor Don
Hamilton Residents: Harry Eaglesham,
President, Unionville Ratepayer Association Staff: Jim Baird,
Commissioner of Development Services Biju
Karumanchery, Senior Development Manager David Miller,
Senior Project Coordinator, Langstaff Laura Gold,
Committee Clerk |
Regrets: Councillor Dan
Horchik |
The
meeting was called to order at 11:39 am with Councillor Don Hamilton presiding
as Chair.
1.
Background Information
Staff
reported that (2) staff memorandums were brought forward to Council in June
based on a request from residents to consider changing the zoning for the Varley
Village Area to include an Infill Housing By-Law. At the Council meeting in June, Council recommended
that the Unionville Sub-Committee consult with the Unionville Ratepayers
Association and other stakeholders to consider the merit of having an Infill Housing
By-Laws for the Varley Village Area.
Noting that the purpose of today’s Unionville Sub Committee is to
consider the merit of having an Infill Housing By-Laws for the Varley Village
Area.
2.
Discussion
Staff
advised that they are in the process of reviewing an Infill By-Law for the
Thornhill area, which has been in place since the early 1990s. They felt that an Infill Housing By-Law for Varley Villiage
could mirror the provisions of the Thornhill area Infill Housing By-Law. Staff reported that an Infill Housing By-Law would further restrict
the size of dwellings in the area.
Noting the greatest distinction is with respect to lot size, as the Infill
By-Law caps lot coverage at 45%.
Staff reviewed minor variances that had occurred
in the Varley Village area between 2003 and 2010, noting that that the Committee
of Adjustment (CA) had approved 40% of the minor variances during this
timeframe. Residents were advised that
the CA is responsible for making the decision with respect to approval of a minor
variance.
Residents
inquired if there is a difference in the approval process for a house that is
being rebuilt than the approval process for a house that is being renovated, as
they felt much larger houses were being built than residents had anticipated
based on the notification provided by the Town. They inquired if the by-law could define renovation/addition
in order to avoid any future confusion. Staff advised this could only be done if
addition/renovation had been defined in the parent by-law. Residents explained that the confusion exists
when residents are being notified of a house that is being renovated and it ends
up being a totally rebuilt home.
Residents
were advised that the approval is based on the zoning of the property,
reporting that the Town does not make decisions based on if the house is being
renovated or being rebuilt, rather a decision is made based on if the house
meets the Zoning By-Law requirements. Staff reported that the CA may give
special consideration if the original house was not in compliance with the Zoning
By-Law.
Residents
inquired if the Town would appeal a CA decision. Staff advised that it would be unusual for
the Town to appeal a CA decision, but noted that it can be done. Staff reported that the Town would only
appeal a CA decision that had larger implications for the Town.
Residents
were asked to clarify what type of housing they would like to be permitted in
the Varley Village area. Residents
clarified that they would like to see houses built within a size range that
complements the area and preserves the integrity of the area, noting that some
of new homes overpower the older homes in the area.
The
Working Group discussed how it is permissible to build an 8,000 square foot
home on a 12,000 square foot lot under the current by-law (12,000 *66 2/3 =
8000). Staff showed how having an Infill
By-Law for the Varley Village area would greatly reduce the maximum square footage
permissible on 12,000 square foot lot to approximately 4,388 square foot ([4500/2
+7500] *45%) based on the by-laws mathematics.
Staff
felt it was reasonable to consider applying an Infill By-Law to the Varley
Village area. The Working Group
discussed how they could ensure that both new homes and renovated homes are compatible
and complementary to the existing community.
Staff advised that this type of control is handled through architectural
control in heritage districts, reporting that this type of regulation is
difficult to administer and is not recommend for neighborhoods with single
detached homes, as too many regulations are perceived as overbearing.
The
Working Group agreed that the first step is to further review the affect an Infill
By-Law would have on the Varley Village area based on the by-laws mathematics. They agreed that having an Infill By-Law would
eliminate the worst offenders. They discussed whether the Infill By-Law will
provide enough regulation to protect the character of the community, noting
that the Infill By-Law may not deal with the issue of compatibility. Although, the Working Group felt that if it
recommended a more aggressive legislation it would likely be resisted by the
community.
Staff advised
they would bring more information to the next meeting with respect to the lot
sizes in the Varley Village Area. Staff
noted that an unintended consequence of having an Infill By-Law could be more
applications from developers to severe lots, which could lead to a greater
number of smaller homes built closer together.
It was clarified that an In-fill By-law would only control the size of a
house and not the aesthetics of a house. The Working Group agreed that it did not
want to go the route of imposing architectural control over the Varley Village
Area.
Staff were
requested to obtain the building specifications for specific properties on
Carlton Avenue, Callahan Road and Pomander Road that were believed not to be complementary
of the Varley Village area and report back at the next meeting:
3. Next
Steps
The
Working Group reviewed the Unionville Infill By-Law Work Program Meeting Schedule. It was requested that step 2 (volume of
development activity) and step 3 (walking tour) be combined. Staff advised that the next meeting will
occur on August 10 or 11 possibly at the gallery. The Clerk’s Department was requested to
schedule the meeting. At the August 10
or 11 meeting the Working Group will first review the volume of development in
the Varley Village Area and will then go for a walk in the area.
Mr.
Harry Eaglesham, President, Unionville Ratepayer Association, and David
Wakeham, resident, were requested to recruit (6) to (8) locals to join the
Working Group. The Working Group felt
there should be equal representation with respect to those who support having an
Infill Housing By-Law and those who are against having an Infill Housing By-Law
in the Varley Village area. It was suggested that a builder and a real
estate agent be approached and asked to join the Working Group.
The
Working Group discussed the possibility of expediting the Unionville Infill
By-Law Work Program Meeting Schedule. There was discussion about holding the Public
Meeting in the fall rather than in January.
4. Adjournment
The
Unionville Sub Committee adjourned at 12:57 PM