Report to: Development Services Committee Date of Meeting: April 17, 2007
SUBJECT: Town
initiated Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments for Policies and
Development Standards for Rural Residential Areas
PREPARED BY: Dave
Miller, Senior Project Coordinator, ext. 4960
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT a
Public Meeting be held to consider the Town initiated Official Plan (OP.06-133377) and Zoning By-law (ZA.06-133382) amendments to amend the policies of
the Official Plan for lands designated Rural Residential and to add development
standards to By-law 304-87, as amended for lands zoned Rural Residential Estate;
THAT notice of the Public Meeting be
advertised in the local papers, after the Town has received confirmation from
York Region regarding their determination whether or not the proposed Official Plan is of local
significance, and is exempt from Regional approval;
AND that Staff be authorized and
directed to do all things necessary to give effect to this resolution.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
To
clarify Council’s intent that new construction in the rural residential areas
must be compatible with the existing neighbourhood character, staff are proposing that the Rural
Residential policies in the Official Plan, that apply to the Cachet Parkway
area be refined, and that the Rural Residential Estate provisions in By-law
304-87, as amended affecting the Cachet Parkway and the Carolwood Crescent area
be amended.
The Official Plan amendment will refine
the wording in the Rural Residential designation to make it clear, that in
order to preserve the open space character of the community, all lots in the
Cachet area should have a minimum lot area of 0.4 hectares (0.99 acres). (The Urban Residential designation that
applies to the Carolwood Crescent area does not regulate minimum lot areas,
consequently refinements are not required.) The By-law amendment will require, in
addition to the minimum 3 metre (9.84 foot) side yard setback, that the
combined side yard setbacks on a lot will be at least 8 metres (26.25 feet).
FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS:
Not applicable
Location
and Property
There are two areas in the Town
that are zoned Rural Residential Estate by By-law 304-87, as amended. The
smallest has a gross area of approximately 16.23 hectares (40.1 acres). It is located east of Markham Road, north of
14th Avenue and south of the 407.
The lands include homes on Carolwood Crescent, Lindholm Crescent, Palatin
Court and part of Chatelaine Drive (Plan 5937).
Its consists of approximately 33 lots, which range in size from
approximately 0.4 hectares (0.99 acres) to 0.7 hectares (1.73 acres). (See Figure 1.) This area is designated Urban Residential in
the Official Plan and is fully serviced.
The proposed changes to the Official Plan do not apply to this area.
The second area affected has a
gross area of 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.) This area is designated Rural Residential in
the Official Plan. Municipal water
supply is being made available to this area.
However, sanitary service is not available. The proposed changes to Official Plan will
apply to this area.
Both of the areas affected are
zoned RRE – Rural Residential Estate, by By-law 304-87, as amended. The proposed changes to the zoning by-law
will apply to both areas.
The majority of these areas are
well established and fully developed, and are primarily comprised of estate
type low density residential properties.
There are a few vacant lots, scattered throughout the areas.
A denial of a request to sever and convey a
residential lot was appealed to the Municipal Board
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 –
decision attached.) 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 – decisions attached.) The lot frontages of the proposed parcels
would have complied with the minimum 36.5 metre (120 feet) lot frontage
requirement of the zoning By-law.
Planning staff did not support
approval of the severance application to the Committee of Adjustment for a
number of reasons. In staff’s opinion,
the proposed severance did not meet the Planning Act Criteria for land division
set out in Section 51(24) (conformity with the Official Plan, the dimensions
and shape of proposed lots, suitability of the land for the intended purpose
and the adequacy of municipal services).
The proposed severance did not conform with the Official Plan requirement
that lots shall not be less than 0.4 hectares (0.99 acres) in area. This is a specific requirement of the
Official Plan, that applies to areas designated Rural Residential, to provide
for sufficiently large lots to protect the rural character of the
neighbourhood.
There have been a number of minor
variance applications in these areas over the years. Most have been to facilitate the construction
of small additions and accessory building.
However, there were a few minor variance and consent applications submitted
to facilitate the creation of new lots. Some where approved, some denied and some
deferred. The decisions were based on
the merits of each application. However,
the nature and extent of these applications has strengthened staffs opinion
that the Official Plan policies should be clarified and the zoning amended.
Planning staff did not support
the variances to reduce the minimum lot area because the proposal did not meet
the four test in the Planning Act. In
order for a variance to be granted by the Committee of Adjustment four test
must be met. They are:
a) The
variance must be minor in nature;
b) The
variance must be desirable and appropriate for the development of the land;
c) The
general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law must be maintained; and
d) The
general intent and purpose of the Official Plan must be maintained.
Failure to pass just one of these
four tests is grounds for the approval authority (e.g. Committee of Adjustment
or the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB)) to deny the variance. Planning staff were of the opinion that the
variances to reduce the lot size failed all four tests. 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 opinion that the
proposed severance and variances did not conform to the Official Plan. Council, at its meeting on April 25 2006, did
not approve the application to notwithstand the Official Plan policies
requiring lots to be no less than 0.4 hectares (0.99 acres) and this application
was also appealed to the OMB. These
appeals were consolidated and heard together in one 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.
OPTIONS/ DISCUSSION:
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 relationship between 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 hearing it became
clear that the Official Plan wording of these two requirements (minimum lot
areas and septics) must 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).
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 have considered and
tested 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 information, 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 one side yard greater than 4.0 metres
(13.12 feet), and that the combined widths of the side yards on a lot are
typically greater than 8.0 metres (26.25 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. 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 8 metres.”
With this additional provision the combined side yard
setbacks on a lot, will have to add up to at least 8.0 metres (26.25 feet).
A review of air photos and Building
Department records suggest that there may be a small percentage of lots that
will be rendered legal non-conforming, should Council decide to approve a
By-law that requires minimum combined side yard setbacks of 8 metres.
Staff recommend that a Public
Meeting be held to consider the proposed changes to the
Rural Residential designation of the Official Plan and the Rural Residential
Estate zone of By-law 304-87, as amended.