Consolidated Report on a Preservation Zoning Study
for a Portion of Strathearn Road; and
A Zoning Amendment Application for 3 Strathearn Road
Ward 28, York Eglinton
The York Community Council recommends the adoption of the report (September28,1998) from the Director of
Community Planning, West District:
The York Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Directorof Community
Planning, West District, to:
(1)undertake a review of the lands not only on the south side of StrathearnRoad, but on the entire street, as to appropriate
uses;
(2)identify the parameters on which the development of the by-law was based, including background information and the
conditions that existed in the late 1950s; and
(3)provide a comparison of land usage for all the prestige areas in Wards27 and 28.
The York Community Council submits the following report (September 28, 1998) from the Director of Community
Planning, West District:
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)the rezoning application for 3 Strathearn Road be refused; and
(2)the 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 (1.68acres). 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 StrathearnRoad 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 November18, 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 September 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-lawNo.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 12metres 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(68percent) indicated that the
existing regulations meet the needs of their property, and 12(63percent) 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
ZoningBy-lawNo. 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 (70feet)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
York Senior Planner:
Tel: 394-2869
Fax: 394-2782
(Copies of Appendices 1 to 4 and Table 1 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.)
________
-Mr. Earl Schwebel, on behalf of Ms. Janet Fine, a resident of Strathearn Road, appeared before the Community Council
in connection with the foregoing matter.