20.CONSOLIDATED REPORT ON A PRESERVATION ZONING STUDY FOR A PORTION OF STRATHEARN ROAD AND A ZONING AMENDMENT APPLICATION FOR 3 STRATHEARN ROAD, FILE R98-006

Ward 28, York-Eglinton.

Karen V. Bricker, MCIP, Director of Community Planning, West District

(September 30, 1998)

Purpose:

To report on the study requested by York Community Council regarding the possibility of additional preservation zoning measures for the south side of Strathearn Road and to consider a site specific zoning amendment application for 3 Strathearn Road.

Financial Implications:

None

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)That the rezoning application for 3 Strathearn Road be refused; and

(2)That planning staff and legal staff be directed to attend the November 18, 1998 Ontario Municipal Board hearing to support this recommendation.

Background:

1.Site and Surrounding Area

The site is located on the south side of Strathearn Road, west of Bathurst Street. (see Appendix 1: Location Map) The site has a frontage of 40.3 metres (132 ft) and lot area of 0.68 hectare (1.68 acres). An existing single detached house is currently situated on the westerly 26 metres of the site.

The surrounding area is characterized by large houses on large lots on the south side of Strathearn Road between Bathurst Street and Markdale Road with lot widths ranging from 18.2 m (60 ft) to 42 m (138 ft). Detached houses are located on the north side of Strathearn Road with lots averaging 15 metres (50 feet). The Cedarvale Ravine and Park abuts the application site to south. Single detached homes surround the site on all other sides.

2.Proposal

The applicant is proposing a zoning amendment to sever the lot into two equal parcels, both with frontage on Strathearn Road, which result in the demolition of at least a portion of the existing house on the lot. The westerly lot will have a frontage width of 21.4 metres and an area of 0.35 hectares while the easterly lot will have a frontage width of 18.9 metres and a lot area of 0.33 hectare. No development plans have been submitted for redevelopment of the lands. (See Appendix 2: Lot Severance Plan) Relief is sought from Subsection 16(1) of By-law No. 1-83 which restricts additional dwelling units, subsequent to demolition.

3.Previous Consent Application

A consent application to sever the property in order to create a new 15 metre wide lot for development with a single detached dwelling was refused by the Committee of Adjustment on December 2, 1997, and subsequently appealed by the applicant, Mr. Kerr, to the Ontario Municipal Board. This application was in compliance with the Zoning By-law as there were no plans to demolish any part of the existing house. One of the concerns expressed by some of the neighbours was that the 15 metre (50 feet) width of the new lot while conforming to the by-law was out of character with existing lots on the south side of the street.

On May 5, 1998, the Ontario Municipal Board adjourned the hearing for this appeal to November 18, 1998. Although City staff were not present at the hearing, we understand that the severance proposal, which is the subject of this report, was presented to the Board as a possible solution to settle outstanding concerns of parties appearing at the Board. All parties appearing at the Board advised that the adjournment was appropriate.

The adjournment was granted to permit the submission of a zoning amendment application which was filed on May 30, 1998, and to allow enough time for Council to reach a decision on the matter. The applicant on Sept 2, 1998 filed an appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board for consideration of this application on the basis that Council has neglected to make a decision on the application. The applicant has further requested that the appeal of this application be consolidated with the appeal of the consent application that will resume before the Board on November 18, 1998, since the two applications are directly related.

4.Official Plan and Zoning

The site is designated Low Density Residential in the Official Plan which permits detached houses. The site is zoned R1-Residential District under Zoning By-law No. 1-83 and under By-law No. 3623-97 which introduces new zoning regulations for all residential zoning districts, and which is currently under appeal at the Ontario Municipal Board as it applies to R1 zones. The size of the proposed lots (0.35 and 0.33 hectares) conforms to the minimum lot area of 0.0375 hectares under Zoning By-law No. 1-83. No minimum lot area is required under By-law No. 3623-97. The proposed frontage widths (21.4 and 18.9 metres) conform to the minimum frontage width of 12 metres required by both by-laws.

An area specific zoning under Subsection 16(1) of Zoning By-law No. 1-83 also applies to the site. This subsection was introduced by By-law No. 16035 passed by Council for the Borough of York in February 1959. Subsection 16(1) contains provisions to regulate the replacement of existing dwellings on Strathearn Road. In part, it states that:

(1)" No dwelling house which on the date this By-law is passed is erected on lands abutting -

(a)both sides of Strathearn Road extending from Bathurst Street westerly and north-westerly to the south limit of Markdale Avenue...

and is thereafter demolished or destroyed in whole or in part shall be replaced by more than one, one-family dwelling house."

Subsection 16(1)will not permit the proponent to demolish all or a part of the existing dwelling house at 3 Strathearn Road for the purpose of creating two residential development lots. The zoning application therefore requests exemption from the provisions of Subsection 16(1).

5.Motion on Preservation Area Study

On April 1, 1998, the York Community Council passed a motion directing the York Commissioner of Development Services to:

" report on proposed methods to introduce additional preservation measures for the ravine side of Strathearn Road between Cedarvale Park and Bathurst Street, including the feasibility of increasing the minimum frontages applied to this street, in order to preserve the established character of the area."

A map of the preservation zoning study area is attached as Appendix 3. Since this motion directly affects the subject rezoning application, planning staff have incorporated the preservation zoning study into this report on the site specific rezoning application.

A preservation zoning provision to increase minimum lot frontages to 22.8 metres (75 feet) for the south side of Strathearn Road from Glen Cedar Road to Bathurst Street was previously proposed by By-law No. 2981-78 passed in 1978. On the appeal of the By-law by the applicant, Mr D. Kerr, the Ontario Municipal Board, on January 2, 1980, ruled that the subject area did not require the additional protection of an increase in the minimum lot frontage in light of the provisions of subsection 16(1) of Zoning By-law which were already in existence.

Comments:

(1) Preservation Zoning Area Study

The purpose of the study was to determine the preferences of the local homeowners with respect to minimum lot frontage, and whether they felt the existing legislation aided that preference. In addition, the lots frontages were tested to determine if there was a better alternative to Subsection 16(1) of the Zoning By-law to preserve the character of the area.

(a) Results of the Proposed Preservation Area Survey

Forty-two surveys were mailed to homeowners within and abutting the Strathearn Road Preservation Zoning Study Area. (See Appendix 3) Nineteen responses were received, equalling a 45 percent return. The full study questions and responses are in Appendix 5: Strathearn Road Survey Questions and Responses. The average length of ownership on the street is 18 years. Most of the residents of the street were attracted to the area by the ravine and unique character of the area, including the beautiful houses, large lots, and open spaces between the homes.

Of the 19 responses, three (15 percent) would consider subdividing their lots in future, 13 (68 percent) indicated that the existing regulations meet the needs of their property, and 12 (63 percent) felt the existing regulations meet the needs of the neighbourhood. The apparent preference is for maintaining the current wide lots that now exist on the street and the existing regulations.

When asked if other types of regulations would be preferred, 36 percent of the fourteen respondents answering this question would prefer that no severance be allowed, 36 percent would prefer regulations that would only allow large houses to be built, 14 percent indicate a need for traffic control regulations, and the balance indicated other preferences.

To summarize, the majority of respondents indicated that subsection 16(1) was acting to preserve the neighbourhood; however they would like the extra assurance of not allowing any severance. The latter is not possible as the ban on severance may result in a claim of discrimination, as previously ordered by the Ontario Municipal Board.

(b)Proposed Preservation Area Lot Width Study

The second part of the Preservation Zoning Area Study was to determine the number of lots that could be divided to yield additional lots under the current minimum 12 metre (39.4 ft) lot frontage provisions in Zoning By-law No. 1-83 and By-law No. 3623-97 for R1 zones, and under wider lot frontage scenarios.

Table 1: Strathearn Road Potential New Lot Creation Chart shows all the large properties located on the south side of Strathearn Road and the number that could be divided in different circumstances. To summarize, twelve properties could divide their lots under the general R1 provisions of the by-law. In most instances the existing houses would require demolition. Under Subsection 16(1), however, only three properties could be subdivided to produce new development lots.

When increasing the minimum front lot width to 15.2 m (50 ft), five properties could be subdivided; at 18.3 m (60 ft), three properties could be subdivided; and at 21.4 m (70 ft), none of the properties could be subdivided.

Based on these results, it appears that Subsection 16(1) prevents the majority of large lots from being further subdivided and helps maintain the integrity and character of the area. The alternative would be to increase the lot frontage requirement to 18.3 metres (60 ft), which would equal the number of properties protected under Subsection 16(1).

The results coupled with the fact the area has not experienced any new lot creation and related residential development for at least 20 years indicates that the existing area specific zoning in Section 16(1) has served to maintain the stability and character of the area. No further or different preservation measures based on a minimum lot frontage requirement would be necessary. This is essentially the same conclusion as the Ontario Municipal Board reached in its Order on the previous preservation By-law No. 2981-78 proposed for the area.

(2)Public Process:

Two community meetings have been held.. The first was held on July 23, 1998, to present and discuss the zoning amendment application with the neighbourhood. Approximately eleven people attended the meeting. The neighbours expressed concern about the precedent that such a zoning amendment and subsequent severance would create for the remaining properties on the south side of the street, and the compatibility of the proposal with the existing neighbourhood.

The second meeting was held on September 10, 1998 to discuss the results of the preservation zoning study, attached as Appendix 4 and Table 1, which was completed during the Summer 1998. Ten people attended the meeting. The study consisted of a review of lot widths and the effects of subsection 16(1) on possible severances in the study area; a mail-in survey which was completed by 19 property owners on Strathearn Road; and, a review of the previous preservation Zoning By-law No. 2981-78 and the related Ontario Municipal Board decision of 1980.

The comments from the second meeting focused on the results of the preservation survey and lot width study and generally indicated that Subsection 16(1) had protected the area from lot severances and intensification. Results from the survey indicated that residents were attracted to the area by the ravine and the unique character of the area which included the large lots. The test results for larger minimum lot frontage widths at a 15.2 metre (50 feet),18.3 metre (60 feet), and a 21.4 metre (70 feet)lot minimum was discussed. It was determined that the provisions of Subsection 16(1) provided less potential for the creation of a few additional redevelopment lots through consent than the establishment of a 15.2 metre minimum lot frontage requirement, and the same potential for the creation of additional lots with an 18.3 metre minimum lot frontage requirement.

The site specific rezoning for 3 Strathearn Road was also reviewed with respect to removing the provisions of Subsection 16(1) from this property and relying solely on the minimum 12 metre lot frontage provisions under Zoning By-law No. 1-83 and appealed By-law No. 3623-97. It was evident that a precedent could be set which could apply to the demolition, severance and redevelopment of the 12 other large properties in the study area to result in the creation of many more residential lots and new residential construction than could now occur. There was little support for removing Subsection 16(1) and replacing it with other types of preservation measures, especially since this Subsection appears to be more stringent than that of any other former municipality in Toronto.

(3)Evaluation of the Application:

(a)Conformity of the Application with Official Plan Policies

Section 9.12 of the Official Plan for the former City of York allows single detached houses in Low Density Residential Areas. Section 9.14 sets out the criteria by which rezoning applications are assessed and found suitable. This section regards Low Density Residential neighbourhoods as stable and requires any new residential development to be carefully integrated to ensure:

"that any intensification, infill, conversion or redevelopment for housing purposes which is permitted to occur will reflect the opportunities and constraints of the location and will result in a compatible built form in adjacent areas."

To guide the assessment of a rezoning application for approval the policies of the Official Plan also indicate that:

"Council shall seek an appropriate balance between the desire to attract re-investment to upgrade the housing stock and the desire to ensure that intensification activities are in keeping with the built form of the neighbourhood and enhances adjacent land use.

The existing preservation zoning provisions contained in Subsection 16(1), coupled with the proposed R1 zoning provisions contained in By-law No. 3623-97 provide the appropriate balance between providing modest intensification opportunities that are in keeping with the neighbourhood and ensuring the stability of the area. Approval of the proposed application would result in a precedent in the neighbourhood which could apply to the potential of subdivision for the other 12 large properties on the south side of Strathearn Road. The area was not meant to be viewed as one where intensification was encouraged. Approval of this type of application will start to change the character of the area, and is therefore not within the intent of the Official Plan, nor the preservative zoning restriction.

(b)Suitability of Rezoning 3 Strathearn Road

As noted above, the implications of permitting the rezoning could create a precedent for approval of other similar applications along the south side of the street in the area.

After two meetings with the residents to discuss the specific rezoning application and the Preservation Zoning Area Study, residents appear to be more carefully considering the precedent that exempting the subject property from the provisions of Subsection 16(1) may have on the remainder of the properties on the south side of Strathearn Road. Should applications be brought forward to divide the 12 properties that are large enough to be divided into one or more additional 12 metre lots, 15 additional lots could be created from the 12 existing lots, for a total of 27 lots. The potential subdivision could also result in the loss of many of the homes and likely the mature landscaping on the south side of the street that the neighbourhood now enjoys. The intent of the Zoning By-law is to maintain the character of the area. As this application would involve the demolition of the existing house and its replacement with two dwellings it fails to meet the requirement.

Due to the precedence setting nature of removing Section 16(1) for 3 Strathearn Road, it is recommended that the subject application be refused. The applicant does have a right to divide his property, and is advised that the previous consent application that was before the Ontario Municipal Board complied with existing zoning provisions.

Conclusions:

Alternative minimum lot frontage measurements were tested in the Preservation Zoning Study Area; however, they would result in more or equal numbers of potential lot divisions and intensification opportunities when compared to those that could now occur under the regulations imposed by Subsection 16(1) of the Zoning By-law. Subsection 16(1) has worked well as a preservation measure for the area and will continue to do so in future. It allows a very limited opportunity for subdivision on three lots out of the 18 surveyed in the Preservation Study Area and as such provides an acceptable balance for accommodating modest intensification while ensuring the stability of the residential area. No other preservation measures are recommended for the area.

Approval of the subject zoning amendment application is likely to set a precedent for similar applications in relation to the other 12 large lots on Strathearn Road. This precedent would potentially undermine the character, stability, and integrity of by the area and therefore does not meet the intent of the Official Plan and the preservative zoning restriction. It is therefore recommended that the zoning amendment application be refused.

Contact Name:

Wendy Johncox, RPP MCIP Senior Planner:Phone: 394-2869 Fax: 394-2782

APPENDIX 4: STRATHEARN ROAD SURVEY QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES

1. How many years have you lived in this house?

(19 responses)

Summary

average: 18.4 years

range: 2 to 45 years

Responses

15, 36, 4, 4, 17, 18, 45, 2, 38, 33, 32, 17, 43, 19, 4.5, 4, 13, 2, 4

2. What attracted your family to the neighbourhood?

(19 responses)

Summary

The most common factors which attracted families to Strathearn Road include the proximity and beauty of the ravine (42.1%), the unique character of the neighbourhood including the beauty of the residences on the south side of the road (36.8%) and the large lots and open spaces between the homes (31.6%).

Responses

Ravine lot on very open ravine, south facing backyard, nowhere else in the city is as nice

Location, ravine, house itself

The street is unique. From our home on the north side of Strathearn near Bathurst we have a nice view of the city.

The ravine, beautiful homes on the south side of the street

Single family residential, space between houses, adjacent ravine/park, large lots

We were attracted to our house and the proximity to Cedarvale School and private schools in the area

I have always lived in this neighbourhood and love Strathearn Road. Three of my family live on it.

Safety and nice neighbourhood.

The open spaces between houses.

Quiet residential area. Good schools. Well maintained properties.

The house and its setting, many schools in the area, synagogues, close to downtown transit

The beauty of the ravine, lots, the greenery and parks, the cohesive nature of the neighbourhood

The beautiful nature of the south side of the street which we face. The elegant and substantial houses on large lots was of prime consideration.

The open spaces, wide views, greenery, proximity of the ravine, tranquillity, sunshine, and light

The street and the proximity to our chosen school.

Large lots, Strathearn has a special character especially on the ravine side.

Proximity to downtown, ravine across the street, nice houses on the street especially on the south side, proximity to east-west and north-south buses and to subway stations.

Large open spaces i.e. lots; grand vistas of south Strathearn Road, convenience to Allen Road and Downtown, subways, parks

Quality and character of our and neighbouring properties.

3. What is the approximate length of the front lot line of your property?

(19 responses)

Summary

mean: 70.5 feet

range: 50 to 131 feet

Responses

85 feet, 131 feet, 50 feet, 50 feet, 60 feet, 100 feet, 50'.7 feet, 50.0 feet, 100 feet, 50 feet, 92 feet,

108 feet, 50 feet, 50+ feet, 75 feet, 66 feet, 50-65 feet, 55 feet, 60 feet

4. Would you consider dividing your property into two lots in the future?

(19 responses)

Summary and Responses

Yes - 3 votes (15.8%)

No - 13 votes (68.4%)

Undecided - 3 votes (15.8%)

5. Do the existing regulations meet your need for your property?

(19 responses)

Summary

Yes: 13 responses - 68.4%

No: 3 responses - 15.8%

Undecided: 3 responses - 15.8%

Overall 36.8% of the respondents stated a preference for regulations which maintained the wide lots which currently make up Strathearn Road. 50% of this group felt that the existing regulations met their needs for their property. 33.3% of this group felt that the existing regulations were not meeting their needs and 16.7% were undecided.

A desire to preserve the neighbourhood as it is was expressed by 11.1% of the respondents. This group also felt that the existing regulations meet their needs for their property.

Responses

Why (Yes)?

(13 responses)

mean: 68.4%

Yes

Yes

Section 16.1 is in place (which can be excepted as required). New ravine preservation by-law is in place. City of Toronto by-laws will be covering property as well as regarding trees etc. When politicians figure that out.

It is so central (just block from Bathurst) and so residential and beautiful as it is.

It is a nice street why spoil it.

Yes

The zoning is satisfactory. More prestigious streets in Forest Hill have less demanding or restrictive regulations

Because the north side has smaller frontage and would not accommodate 2 homes per lot. We would very much object to any severance on the south side of this beautiful block.

We are happy with things the way they are.

Yes

I like wide lots. I paid a premium to be in this neighbourhood. I don't want lots subdivided.

Yes

Yes

Why (No)?

(3 responses)

mean: 15.8%%

Lot too large

40' width is atypical for the street

At present time the minimum frontage for any home even in this area is 40'. This means that density can be increased here (as is in the case of the Kerr application) if land is available. I would like to see minimum frontages for new homes in the first 2 blocks west of Bathurst to be at least 60. I would also like section 16.1 of the planning act (that one can't remove an existing structure to build 2 new structures) to be preserved. To preserve the beauty of the ravine lands, I would also like legislation protecting existing trees that border neighbouring properties.

Why (Undecided)?

(3 responses)

mean: 15.8%

The ravine side of Strathearn Road is a separate world from the other side. The houses have all been extensively upgraded from 51 East to Bathurst. Any change at Strathearn would require a minimum size of house commensurate with that aspect (i.e. minimum size of townhouse larger rather then smaller). If done properly it would not detract from the neighbourhood.

Undecided

I definitely do not want the lots of South Strathearn to be 40'. It would lose its character and unique nature. So I support our dwelling and not the 40' minimum; would support a minimum of 60-80 feet.

6. Do the existing regulations meet your needs for the neighbourhood?

(18 responses)

Summary

Yes: 12 responses - 66.7%

No: 5 responses - 27.8%

Undecided: 1 response - 5.5%

36.8% of those surveyed expressed the opinion that severances should not be permitted. 33.3% of this group felt that severances would only be acceptable if the minimum lot frontages were increased. In general 42.9% of the group stated 'yes' that the existing regulations met their needs for the neighbourhood and 57.1% stated 'no'.

11.1% of the respondents were of the opinion that severing lots would not be detrimental to the neighbourhood. This group was split with 50.0% in agreement with the existing regulations and 50.0% against.

11.1% of those who responded were in support of the existing regulations as they would 'like to preserve it (the neighbourhood) as it is.'

Responses

Why (Yes)?

(12 responses)

mean: 66.7%

However, I do not want to see south side householders held hostage to the north side NIMBY attitude.

Yes

See above (s 161, ravine, City of Toronto by-laws will protect both property and trees)- unduly restrictive. Please look at new developments on old Forest Hill Road - a better neighbourhood

Yes

Yes

Maintain family rather than commercial use of lands.

Yes (The zoning is satisfactory. More prestigious streets in Forest Hill have less demanding or restrictive regulations)

The overwhelming feeling is that there should be no severances allowed on the south side. The ravine side gives the exceptional character to Strathearn Road.

We would like to preserve it as it is.

Spacious lots, nice family neighbourhood, trend is getting too crowded, lot and houses are being overbuilt.

I like the neighbourhood the way it is except for the recent addition of speed bumps and road narrowing

We do not favour the division of existing lots.

Why (No)?

(5 responses)

mean: 27.8%

Lot size, 1 acre too large, taxes too high

I'd be disappointed if the lots on the south side of Strathearn were divided.

If large lots are subdivided, the character of the street will change for the worst

No, same reasons as #5 (At present time the minimum frontage for any home even in this area is 40'. This means that density can be increased here (as is in the case of the Kerr application) if land is available. I would like to see minimum frontages for new homes in the first 2 blocks west of Bathurst to be at least 60. I would also like section 16.1 of the planning act (that one can't remove an existing structure to build 2 new structures) to be preserved. To preserve the beauty of the ravine lands, I would also like legislation protecting existing trees that border neighbouring properties.)

I am very concerned that 40 foot frontage lots will destroy the south side of the street and therefore the whole street. Strathearn Road should have a High minimum frontage at least 65-70 feet for new lots. Also there is inadequate protection for existing homes.

Why (Undecided)?

(1 response)

mean: 5.5%

Undecided

8. If you feel the existing regulations do not adequately protect your property and/or neighbourhood, what other kinds of regulations would you prefer?

(14 responses)

Summary

Of the 14 people who answered this question 35.7% would prefer regulations that prevent severances, 35.7% would like regulations which ensure that only large homes are built, and 14.3% would like to see traffic control regulations. Other preferences included: 'limiting density, frontage, and tree removal', restrictions on front yard parking, and more lenient regulations (in particular the ravine policies and s. 16.1).

Responses

1) Parking on site and absolutely interior. If you build homes they must have this to keep it from turning into a front yard parking lot such as Belmont Street. 2) I think that the price of the land should ensure large enough houses are built. Building needs greater square foot size to get back land cost - so planning should make sure a high minimum size per unit with a very large setback off the street. We don't need the houses jammed at the front of the property - again like Belmont at Yonge. So heavy interior parking 2 1/2 cars or 3 cars per unit. Large units and the setback - at least where existing above grade structures are now at 3 Strathearn. Underground could come out to lot line (i.e. underground garages)

Traffic control

I'd like regulations that would prevent dividing the lots on the south side. They're unique houses. It would be sad to lose them.

Do not permit demolition of houses on the south side of the street so more houses can be erected. The lots should remain as it. If someone wants to build a new house that's fine but 1 house per original lot only.

40' frontage is too small. Most lots are 50' and many more than 75'. Would prefer minimum 60' frontage requirement.

I do not agree with any changes, if any s. 16(1) By-law No. 183, and ravine preservation are arbitrarily restrictive.

N/A The objections seem to be raised by the homeowners on the north side of this street where lots are presently considerably smaller. For the few households who wish to subdivide the present regulations would prevent change to the character of the neighbourhood.

As I already mentioned regulations to limit density, frontage and tree removal between properties. Also, regulations limiting height of a new property as well as placement, now only 3 or 4 feet need exist between properties.

We would like to see regulations in place that do not allow any diminution in size of the south lots. Even one severance would alter the character of the street. And we fear a precedent being made that might tempt others on the south side.

As things stand, it seems the regulations are not adequate to preserve the neighbourhood as is so we are interested to change them to the extent and effect that they will

1) Minimum lot frontage of 65-70 feet 2) Entire lot size (ravine part) not counted in determination of allowable house size. I believe that any new homes; if permitted, should fit the character of the existing homes and that the current by-laws just don't ensure that.

To make sure lots are not smaller than 60 feet at minimum.

Regulate the flow of traffic along Strathearn Road by controlling both the volume of traffic and most especially the speed and obedience of drivers to the posted stop signs.

Under no circumstances should any existing lot be divided or subdivided

TABLE 1: STRATHEARN ROAD POTENTIAL NEW LOT CREATION CHART

(Copies of Appendix 1:Location Map; Appendix 2:Lot Severance Plan; Appendix 3: Preservation Zoning Study Area Map; referred to in the foregoing communication, were forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the York Community Council meeting of October 14, 1998 and copies thereof are on file in the Clerk's Department, York Civic Centre.)