December 22, 1999

To: Toronto Community Council

From: Acting Commissioner of Urban Development Services

Subject: Parkdale Conflict Resolution Process: Unit Size and Amenity Area Evaluation

(High Park)

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to provide additional information respecting proposed unit size, parking and amenity area requirements related to bachelorette units in Parkdale.

Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are no financial implications resulting from the adoption of this report.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that Council endorse the standards contained in this report as the basis for the review of bachelorette units outlined in the report of October 22, 1999 (Clause 32 of Toronto Community Council Report No. 12).

Background:

At its meeting of November 9, 1999, Toronto Community Council considered a report regarding the Parkdale Conflict Resolution Process. As part of that report, staff advised that further work was needed to resolve issues related to standards for pre-1978 units regarding a proposed minimum unit size for bachelorette units, the provision of parking and standards for indoor and outdoor amenity space for bachelorette buildings. These matters were to be the subject of a further report.

Comments:

To test the proposed minimum sizes for bachelorette units, staff of Urban Development Services and Legal Services reviewed the approved and current plans for pre-1978 bachelorette buildings. The intent was to evaluate the buildings to determine whether units added since 1978 could meet the proposed unit size of 19m2 (200 sq ft). It is important to note that the review was not intended to provide an "approval" of the building relative to the proposed standards. Staff did not undertake an analysis of the ability of the buildings to meet Building or Fire Code requirements, or the proposed landscaping and parking requirements.

Based on the testing, the units could be acceptable if:

- it could be reasonably proven that all units existed prior to 1978 and were consistent with the approved plans except for the addition of culinary or sanitary facilities;

- no more than 4 additional units had been constructed;

- the building meets the original parking standards (NOTE: For pre-1978 rooming houses the parking standard was zero.); and

- the building provides a minimum of 1 m2 (10 sq ft) of landscaped open space for each unit, with a minimum of 20 m2 of landscaped open space required in either the front or the rear yard, and dedicated for tenant use. Porches or decks, which are accessible to residents of the building, should be considered as part of the landscaped open space requirement.

If the building has more than four additional units above the approved plans, or if it can not be reasonably demonstrated that the units were constructed prior to 1978, the following standards should apply:

- the landscaped open space requirements noted above;

- any amenities (i.e. laundry room, common space, tenant storage space) that appeared on the original plans must be restored;

- any units that were not on the original plans must be made safe or removed; and

- a minimum unit size of 19m2 (200 sq ft) must be maintained.

In addition, it was concluded that all buildings should be licensed, meet the applicable Fire and Building Code standards, and provide an on-site superintendent.

Principles for Minimizing Disruption to Tenants and Owners

The mediation group acknowledged that strict implementation of the minimum size requirement might be problematic for a number of reasons. The size requirement does not account for other amenities in the building or the "quality" of the unit. It does not acknowledge the fact that tenants may have occupied the unit for an extended period of time, and may be quite satisfied with the space available. Creating a larger unit to meet a specific standard (by combining smaller units) may require a landlord to retain a vacant unit for an extended period of time, while waiting for the other required unit to be vacated. This would increase carrying costs, and the creation of a larger unit at the expense of two smaller units is unlikely to improve affordability. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, strict application of the standard could lead to eviction of the current tenant(s).

While the group agreed that 19 m2 (200 sq ft) appeared to be an appropriate minimum unit size, it concluded that the Pilot Group should have sufficient latitude to consider other factors when making a decision about the possible legalization of units which may not meet this standard. When making this decision, the Pilot Project Group may seek input from the Parkdale Housing Committee.

In the case of a tenant occupying a small unit for an extended period of time, the group agreed that it was counter-productive to require the unit to be vacated in order to bring it into conformity with the minimum standard. In these cases, the group agreed that it was appropriate to allow the existing tenant to remain in the unit for as long as desired. The necessary work would, in effect, be "grandfathered" while the tenant remained in the unit. Continued occupancy could be verified through such means as a registered letter to the tenant at regular intervals.

In order to minimize the loss of units, it was agreed that owners should have the flexibility to subdivide or reduce the size of larger units to provide new units which meet the standard and offset the loss of smaller units elsewhere in the building. In order to assist tenants who must be relocated it was also agreed that tenants should have right of first refusal for any new or vacant units within buildings operated by Bachelorette Owners Association members.

It should be noted that there will be no discretionary latitude if buildings do not meet the applicable Fire and/or Building Code standards.

Parking/Amenity Space

The issues of outdoor amenity area and parking are inter-related. The current parking standard applicable to South Parkdale requires 1 parking space for 2 units, or 1 space for 3 dwelling rooms. Efforts to achieve this standard have often resulted in large areas of paved parking and the loss of landscaped space. In some cases, parking has been provided in the front yard. This has further reduced available amenity space and the attractiveness of the street. However, the group feels that few tenants have cars, and the parking is often not used. Where amenity space is not provided within the building, residents are forced to find other alternatives within the community. This has often lead to disruption for nearby tenants and residents.

The group agreed in principle that the provision of parking should not be a barrier to providing this form of housing and that outdoor amenity space is important to the community. Pre-1978 buildings will be subject to the parking standards which applied at that time. The following parking standards should apply to all post- 1978 buildings.

The group has agreed that in buildings with 6 units or more, a minimum of 2 parking spaces should be provided. Since the group believes that the front yard should be used for landscaped open space, parking should be provided behind the front wall of the house wherever possible. Where surplus parking areas are converted to landscaped space, the front yard should be the priority. If the building meets the landscaped open space standard proposed above, an owner may provide more than 2 parking spaces to meet demand generated by the building. Where parking can not be provided on site, due to the lack of driveway or laneway access to the rear yard, permit parking may be secured by the tenant. However, the group felt that the number of spaces provided should be limited to the number of spaces which can be achieved within the frontage of the lot.

The reduced parking standard will allow more of the outdoor space to be used for landscaped open space. In addition, the group has agreed that shared indoor amenity space should be required for post-78 buildings which are considered for legalization. The group agrees that in buildings with 6 units or more, a minimum of 1 m2 (10 sq ft) of indoor amenity space should be provided for each unit, with a minimum of 10 m2 (100 sq ft) interior amenity space required. The building should also be required to provide 1 m2 (10 sq ft) of landscaped open space for each unit, with a minimum of 20 m2 (200 sq ft) required. The landscaped open space could be in either the front or rear yard and must be dedicated for tenant use. Porches or decks, which are accessible to residents of the building, should be considered as part of the landscaped open space requirement.

Housing Registry

The mediation exercise has initiated a process of change affecting housing issues. The group believes that the outcome will result in the retention of a significant number of better quality, affordable units in the community. As part of this on-going process, the group recommends the establishment of a housing registry within South Parkdale. The registry would be a vehicle for linking tenants with available rental units within the community. The implementation of a housing registry requires further consideration including staffing and funding implications. Staff should be requested to report further on these issues as part of the report on the detailled staffing and financial implications of implementing the recommended strategy.

Public Meeting

At the conclusion of the review exercise, the mediation group convened a public information meeting to present the results and receive feedback. The meeting was advertised in the community through posters, direct mailing to more than 120 addresses, and distribution of Notices through the Citizen's Assembly. The meeting was held on December 16, 1999 and was attended by approximately 50 people, including the participants in the mediation exercise.

The results of the mediation were presented by staff and the stakeholders. Response was generally positive. Participants were advised that they could also make a deputation at the January 18, 2000, Community Council meeting.

Conclusion:

Staff have completed a preliminary review of 22 bachelorette buildings, and have discussed the results with the Mediation group. This report outlines areas of further agreement related to unit size, amenity areas, parking standards, and operation of the review process. With these additional clarifications, it is appropriate for Community Council to endorse the proposals set out in the report of October 22, 1999.

Contact:

Dave McKillop, West Section

Telephone: 392-1317

Fax: 392-1330

E-Mail: dmckillop@toronto.ca

Pamela Coburn

Deputy Chief Building Official, South District

Urban Development Services

Beate Bowron

Director, Community Planning, South District

Urban Development Services

Harold Bratten

Acting Executive Director, Municipal Licensing and Standards

Urban Development Services

(p:\1999\ug\uds\pln\to992072.pln) - smc

095038

List of Attachments:

None.