Report to: Development Services Committee Date of Meeting: November 21, 2006

SUBJECT: Ontario Municipal Board hearing on appeal by Wynberry Developments Inc. of By-law 2006-148

PREPARED BY: Bob Boxma, Assistant Town Solicitor, ext. 4745

RECOMMENDATION:

That the Town Solicitor and Staff be instructed to settle the OMB appeal in respect of the above by requesting the Board to approve amendments to By-law 2006-148 as set out in Schedule “A”.

And that Staff be authorized to take all necessary action, including the execution of documents, to give effect to this report.

By-law 2006-148 was passed by Council on June 13, 2006 which rezoned the Phase 2 lands of Wynberry Developments Inc. on the south side of Monkhouse Road. By-law 2006-148 limited the height of the houses on the first three lots to 8 metres at the west end of the site and set the maximum height on the remaining nine houses at 9.14 metres. By letter dated June 28, 2006, the By-law was appealed to the OMB by Wynberry Developments Inc. The appeal related solely to the height limitations that By-law 2006-148 placed upon the twelve lots. There had been extensive consultation and analysis leading up to the passage of this By-law, and after it was appealed, discussions continued between Town staff and Wynberry Developments in an effort to resolve the appeal.

Matters were not able to be resolved before the matter came on for hearing before the OMB on Tuesday, November 7, 2006. Two days had been set for the hearing and the hearing continued until noon on November 8, 2006. Throughout this time, discussions

continued in an effort to resolve differences. A settlement offer was made by Wynberry at that time, which is outlined below, and which was considered by the Assistant Town Solicitor, the Commissioner of Development Services, the Director of Planning and Urban Design, the Town Architect, the Manager, Heritage Planning Section and the

Senior Planner responsible for this plan of subdivision. Upon returning to the hearing, the Board was asked to adjourn for the day and set a new date. The adjournment would allow staff to return to Council to recommend the settlement proposal.

Throughout the 1 ½ days of hearing, no member of the public and no resident of the Heritage Estates subdivision attended the proceedings.

As often happens in this type of proceeding, it was only after hearing the evidence called on behalf of the appellant and seeing the exhibits filed that it was possible to see the impacts of what was being proposed in the Heritage Estates subdivision and on the surrounding properties and be satisfied that they fell within acceptable limits and constituted good planning. At the commencement of the hearing, it was the appellant’s position that all twelve lots should be zoned to allow a maximum height of 10 metres at the peak of the roof and that a height limit that permitted only bungalows on lots 1, 2 & 3 was not necessary. The appellant, through its witness Mark Hall, an architect and heritage planner, introduced a series of exhibits which depicted the perspective of the lots as they exist today, looking north from Heritage Estates and, by an overlay drawn by him, what the perspective will be in 7 to 10 years with new development to the north. Staff noted that these were the kind of drawings that staff had asked the appellant to provide on several occasions previously, but which were never forthcoming. Now having the benefit of them, staff are able to recommend to Council that the appeal be settled on the basis of the provisions set out in the revised By-law.

The settlement proposal will result in the following amendments to By-law 2006-148:

the maximum height of the bungalows with lofts will increase from 8 metres (26.2 ft.) to 9.15(30 ft) metres;

the maximum height of the two storey dwellings will increase from 9.14 metres ( 30 ft) to 10 metres (32.8 ft);

3. the bungalows will now be located on lots 4, 5 & 6, whereas the By-law originally zoned lots l, 2 &3 for bungalows.

The height of dwellings in By-law 2006-148 is measured from the established grade at the front main wall to the highest point of the roof.

Staff recommend the proposed settlement based upon the following:

· more accurate perspective drawings, than the orthographic drawing previously prepared by the applicant’s architect and used by staff in formulating its initial recommendations, were prepared for and presented at the OMB Hearing by the applicant’s heritage consultant. The perspective drawings show that the additional height for the bungalow with loft dwellings to 9.15m [30 ft.] and two storey dwellings to 10m (32.8 ft.) will not visually dominate the adjacent Heritage Estates from the public realm.

· The relocation of the bungalow with loft dwellings from the westerly portion of the lands (Lots 1, 2 and 3) to a more central location (Lots 4, 5 and 6) will provide a better backdrop to Heritage Estates opposite the James Thomas House (14 David Gohn Circle) at the end of Heritage Corners Lane. This is the primary public view looking north on Heritage Corners Lane and has more view corridors and open space offering views to the north. Based on the above-noted perspective drawings, the 10m (32.8 ft.) dwellings on Lots 1, 2 and 3 will not visually dominate the adjacent Heritage Estates, notwithstanding the higher elevation of the lands at this location, and will offer a better transition into the bungalow with loft dwellings.

· Taking into account the grading, staff analysis has shown that the actual difference in height between the heritage house at 10 David Gohn Circle and the new 2 storey houses will be approximately 8 feet. The distance between the proposed new houses and the heritage house is substantial. The new houses are to have 15 m (50 ft) rear yard setbacks and the rear yard setback of the heritage house ranges between 5.5m (18ft) and 12.2m (40 ft) in depth. In addition, the landscape buffer of cedar hedges at the fence line and deciduous trees at the top of the buffer will assist in screening the new development both from the public and private realms. Attached to this report as Schedule “B” is a chart showing the height variances between the existing houses on Heritage Estates lots and the proposed houses on the lots on Monkhouse Road.

· The proposed height limits are significantly more restrictive than the parent By-law 177-96 (11m (36.01ft) measured from the established grade of the building to the mean level between the eaves and ridge of a gabled, hip or gambrel roof, or other type of pitched roof.)

· The applicant is proposing to use a Gothic Revival style of architecture for the dwellings backing onto Heritage Estates and the appropriate roof pitch for this style would benefit from the additional overall height.

The exhibits which were presented to the OMB will be available for viewing when this report is presented. If the hearing had continued to its conclusion, there was a strong risk of all twelve lots being zoned for two storey dwellings, without any provision for the three mandatory bungalow units directed by Council.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS:

Not applicable

ACCESSIBILITY CONSIDERATIONS:

Not applicable

ENGAGE 21^ST CONSIDERATIONS:

Not applicable

BUSINESS UNITS CONSULTED AND AFFECTED:

The Development Services Commission has been consulted in the preparation of this report.

RECOMMENDED

BY: ________________________ ________________________

Catherine M. Conrad John Livey

Town Solicitor CAO