Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlng & Econ Dev - 1996-04-22 SP E D\1996 -04-22 -S P E PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES APRIL 22, 1996 CITY OF KITCHENER The Planning and Economic Development Committee held a special meeting this date commencing at 7:05 p.m. under Councillor C. Weylie, Chair, with the following members present: Mayor R. Christy and Councillors K. Redman, M. Wagner, M. Yantzi, John Smola, Jake Smola, B. Vrbanovic, J. Ziegler, T. Galloway and G. Lorentz. Officials present: Ms. C. Ladd, J. Given and Messrs. T. McCabe, B. Stanley, J. Hancock, J. Shivas, J. Willmer, J. Witmer and L.W. Neil. PD 96~23 -ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION 961091TCIJW - CITY INITIATED REVISION TO BY-LAW 85-1 - APARTMENTS IN HOUSES The Committee was in receipt of a report addressing a City initiated zone change application dealing with duplexes and apartments in houses. The zone change proposes revisions to Zoning By-law 85-1 regarding duplexes and second units within semi-detached houses and townhouses. In this regard the Committee was in receipt of Planning and Development Staff Report PD 96/23 dated March 22, 1996 and a proposed by-law dated March 21, 1996 attached to the report. It was noted in the background section of the staff report that the Residents Rights Act (Bill 120) proclaimed on July 14, 1994 permitted the creation of one apartment in a house wherever single detached, semi-detached or townhouse dwellings were permitted and fully serviced and that the City's Zoning By-law had been amended and brought into conformity with this provincial legislation. However, Provincial Bill 20 now proposes to repeal the Residents Rights Act and allow municipalities to permit and regulate second units as they deem appropriate. Staff report PD 96/5 prepared as a discussion paper on the implications of repeal of Bill 120 was considered at committee meetings held January 22 and February 5, 1996 and the Committee had directed staff to prepare a by-law for consideration at a public meeting this date. Various alternatives for dealing with the issue of second dwelling units were outlined in the report. The alternatives were categorized and addressed separately for single detached, semi-detached and townhouse dwellings, as well as related issues such as parking regulations, lot size regulations and licensing (registration). It was pointed out that notice that the Committee would hold a public meeting this date to consider this matter had previously been given. Councillor B. Vrbanovic requested clarification of intent of the public meeting this date as his understanding was that a decision would be made later. Councillor M. Wagner also noted that he thought the purpose of the meeting was just to receive input. Councillor C. Weylie, Chair, commented that the issue was not a new one, that it had been scheduled to be dealt with and that to delay a decision would be wrong. Mr. T. McCabe pointed out that at the Committee's February 12th meeting, staff were instructed to prepare a proposed by-law for consideration at a public meeting this date. In this regard a recommendation and proposed by-law have been provided that delegations wish to comment on before committee debate and committee consideration of the staff recommendation and proposed by-law takes place. Mr. B. Stanley advised that Mr. J. Willmer would provide an overview of the staff report. Mr. J. Willmer commented on the proposed repeal of provincial legislation and the Committee discussion that took place January 22nd and February 5th, 1996, the meeting minutes of which were attached to staff report PD 96/23. He advised that notice of the public meeting this date was advertised on March 27th in "Kitchener This Week" and on March 29th in "The Record" as well as supplementary notices and a reminder advertisement being given. Mr. Willmer pointed out that the content of report PD 96/23 is substantially the same as the discussion paper, staff report PD 96/5. He commented on the planning principles in respect to duplexing and their reality in the marketplace. He then summarized the following alternatives listed on pages 10 and 11 of staff report PD 96/23 which support the "proposed by-law" dated March 21, 1996: 1. PD 96~23 - ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION 961091TCIJW APRIL 22, 1996 PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES - 56 - CITY OF KITCHENER - CITY INITIATED REVISION TO BY-LAW 85-1 - APARTMENTS IN HOUSES (CONT'D) - Alternative 1 B, which removes the as-of-right provisions for second units in semi-detached houses and townhouses; - Alternative 2A, which continues to permit second units in single detached dwellings in all zones where single detached dwellings are permitted, subject to the availability of municipal sanitary sewer; - Alternative 3C, which establishes a minimum lot size for duplexes which is greater that the requirement for small-lot single detached dwellings; - Alternative 4A, which continues to permit tandem parking for duplexes, and allows one space to be provided less than 6 metres from the street line; and - Alternative 5A, which continues to allow duplexing without the need to obtain a licence Mr. Willmer then drew the following issues to the Committee's attention. Alternative 2F deals with Council's previous approach to duplexing as to permitting duplexing in 50% of the lots in new development areas. He advised that the provincial legislation (Bill 20) has now received third reading but has not been proclaimed and asked that the wording of the condition in the staff report be revised to delete reference to "given royal ascent" and add in its place "proclaimed". He requested that the Committee note a letter from the North Ward Neighbourhood Association faxed and distributed this date commenting on duplexing and intensification. He also referenced a letter written by Ms. Mary Ann Wasilka between the January 22 and February 5, 1996 Committee meetings. Councillor T. Galloway questioned statements in the staff report on pages 3 and 5 dealing respectively with comments on the validity of establishing second units and greater public acceptance of duplexing. He also referred to page 7 and questioned use of the word "rarely" to describe that neighbourhoods outside the inner city rarely permit duplexing. He noted that there were instances of duplexes in suburban areas in addition to the higher density levels generated by townhouses and semi-detached dwellings which are lacking in the inner city areas. Councillor M. Wagner commented that there were no fire safety regulations for apartments in houses when the duplexing matter was dealt with a few years ago. A pamphlet on "Fire Safety for Apartments in Houses" was distributed by the Fire Chief who was requested to define what was meant by fire separation for each dwelling unit. Mr. J. Hancock, Fire Chief, advised that fire separation meant that dwellings were horizontally and vertically separated by half inch drywall properly taped to seal them from one another. He also noted that electrical safety related to safety inspections carried out by local authorities with the focus on proper fusing and wiring. Councillor Jake Smola questioned what the best control was to address the public safety issue relative to duplexes. Mr. Hancock advised that anything that would bring application to fire officials for inspection is preferred. In response to Councillor G. Lorentz, Mr. Hancock advised that when illegal duplexes have been inspected, it has been found that the majority require some work to meet all four safety criteria of fire separation, means of escape, smoke alarms and electrical safety. Mayor R. Christy referred to a new residential development at Union Street/Herbert Street and questioned if the proposed by-law would permit this type of development. Mr. J. Willmer advised that type of development falls within the multiple dwelling classification. Councillor M. Wagner questioned how many apartments in houses have been created in the last 12-18 months and Mr. Willmer advised that approximately 12-15 second units have been developed. Councillor Jake Smola noted that previously a zone change was required to create a second unit and that it was through that process that building officials and fire department officials would exchange information. He suggested that under the current law, no one knows what people are doing in respect to creation of apartments in houses. PD 96~23 -ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION 961091TCIJW - CITY INITIATED REVISION TO BY-LAW 85-1 APRIL 22, 1996 PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES - 57 - CITY OF KITCHENER - APARTMENTS IN HOUSES (CONT'D) Mr. Jim Hodgson appeared as a delegation on behalf of the North Ward Neighbourhood Association to present a submission distributed to the Committee this date. The submission briefly commented on the secondary plan process which began in 1980 through to the proposed Stage 6 rezoning to R-5 that included duplex lodging houses and multiple dwellings in areas that were to remain single family detached, which is what the residents wanted. The submission provides comment on absentee landlords, intensification including lodging houses in addition to duplexing, fair and equitable sharing of residential intensification by all areas and recognition that some properties are not designed to allow duplexing in a workable manner, particularly as to the provision of parking facilities. Some suggestions were provided in the way of regulations to better control duplex development. Councillor T. Galloway referred to the suggestions and recommendations made and questioned if the Association would rather have the neighbourhood rezoned to R-4. Mr. Hodgson replied that the concern was basically that certain areas will take the burden for duplexing and that they would like to see some regulations that would distribute duplexing and control investors in this form of housing. Mr. Marty Wasilka, Past President of the Central Frederick Neighbourhood Association, appeared as a delegation on behalf of the Association. He referenced a letter dated February 1, 1996 from Mary Ann Wasilka with regard to the duplexing issue. He noted that an appeal had been filed with the Ontario Municipal Board and subsequently withdrawn after the comprehensive amendments to By-law 85-1 had been completed which included duplexing within the zoning bylaw. Mr. Wasilka advised that he was in support of the alternatives favoured by staff in staff report PD 96/23 and the recommendation to approve the zone change. He questioned if Alternative 3C regarding minimum lot area and lot width was applied to all zones and Mr. J. Willmer advised that it was only effective in zones R-4, R-5 and up. It was noted that if a property was undersized there would be a level of review before further intensification would be permitted. Mr. Wasilka referred to paragraph 3 on page 7 of the report and advised that he agreed with the premise outlined. Councillor T. Galloway questioned if Mr. Wasilka was in favour of down zoning to R-4. Mr. Wasilka advised that he was not in favour and noted that while it might be an alternative, it was not good planning as everyone should be treated fairly on the intensification issue including owners of large suburban lots. Mr. G.S. Wolfe appeared as a delegation as a concerned homeowner to object to the manner in which zoning was arbitrarily down graded in Forest Heights where he had purchased a new home in a zone designated single family dwelling. Mr. Wolfe stated that he was also concerned with the fact that he felt the Department of Planning and Development was pushing duplexing. He noted that he had attended the public information meetings when the duplex issue was dealt with a few years ago and that a large group of homeowners had attended the third meeting at Forest Heights Collegiate and objected to residential intensification. Mr. Wolfe requested that the zoning contained in the previous zoning by-law be reinstated. Mr. Peter Bufe appeared as a delegation and commented that the zoning homeowners had bought into represented an implied contract between the homeowner and the City and that people should not be deprived of their rights over what was a political issue. Mr. Bufe stated that there was no great demand for duplexing and that a duplex dwelling now has less value than a single family home. He suggested that the argument for duplexing makes no sense as there was no demand for it and thus there was no necessity to encourage it. Ms. Sally Gunz appeared as a delegation representing residents in the Cedar Hills Neighbourhood which went through a painful secondary planning process several years ago. She noted that one of the major issues within intensification was that the neighbourhood had requested assurance duplexing be spread throughout the City so as to not concentrate in a few areas. Ms. Gunz stated that there were very strong arguments to support duplexing and that there were no guarantees that the zoning someone might have bought into at one time will remain the same forever. She suggested that if existing zoning that allows duplexing was reversed what would be left would be the classic in-law set up of unregulated second units in dwellings. She noted that her neighbourhood had agreed in good faith to changes within its secondary plan based on duplexing being spread throughout the City. She maintained that duplexing represented good planning but that if City wide zoning for duplexing was reversed 1. PD 96123 ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION 961091TClJW - CITY INITIATED REVISION TO BY-LAW 85-1 - APARTMENTS IN HOUSES (CONT'D) APRIL 22, 1996 PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES - 58 - CITY OF KITCHENER then one could only contend that it was not good planning and the Cedar Hill neighbourhood would then be forced to protest the zoning placed upon it. Mr. John MacDonald appeared as a delegation and stated that what was really being discussed was the matter of densities, relative density and sustainable density and all of the things that allow for wise and economical use of municipal infrastructure. He commented on the earlier forms of suburban development that saw five lots to the acre being achieved whereas more intensive subdivision developments now achieve 15-20 units per acre. He suggested that there was confusion over the issue of the dweller of a home as compared to the behaviour of such dweller when matters of zoning were raised. Mr. MacDonald pointed out that generalizations as to what single family home means and whether landlords were good or bad do not work and that it was not possible to use zoning to legislate behaviour with regard to categories of dwelling. He asked that the issues of concern be addressed through rigid property standards enforcement and not through zoning laws. Mr. Erich Ritzmann appeared as a delegation and commented that it was his opinion that the staff report takes a reasonable approach in excluding duplexing from semi-detached dwellings and townhouses. He suggested that the arguments across the board in favour of duplexing that were noted on page 5 of the staff report were weak and that the points actually argue against duplexes. Further, he noted that most homeowners do not make a distinction between semi-detached dwellings and duplexes and suggested that they should be categorized similarly. Mr. Ritzmann then referred to the arguments on page 7 of the staff report which noted that inner city neighbourhood groups would oppose Alternatives B to F; however, his neighbourhood supports Alternative C or D. He also suggested that intensification could be achieved by developing lands and/or buildings that have been abandoned with modest housing. Messrs. Phil Rason and Ross Dixon appeared as a delegation on the duplexing issue. Mr. Rason questioned what was wrong with Alternative 2F on page 5. Mr. J. Willmer explained Alternative F and noted that staff did not favour it. In response to Mr. Rason, Mr. Willmer advised that the City of Waterloo did not change its zoning by-law at the time duplexing was made as of right by the provincial government and that the City of Waterloo was attempting to stop the issuance of building permits for duplexes. He objected to the legislation allowing as of right duplexing and suggested that if this zoning designation remained in Kitchener it would drive prospective single family owners to the City of Waterloo. Mr. R. Dixon noted that he had concern about an imbalance in presentation of the duplex issue by the Department of Planning and Development and suggested that the Department has a responsibility to make business like comparisons. He asked that the Committee proceed slowly and obtain views from both sides of the duplex issue. Councillor K. Redman noted that one of the arguments in favour of duplexing is that it makes better use of municipal infrastructure and Mr. Dixon replied that notwithstanding this argument it was the hope of many to own a single family home. Mr. Rason questioned to what extent there was a demand for duplexes in R-2 areas and Mr. J. Willmer replied that it was very small. Mr. Rason questioned why duplexing would be promoted in an R-2 area when there was no demand. Mayor R. Christy commented that there was a new phenomena taking hold in North America under new urbanism that deals with the problem of infrastructure requirements and scarce resources in order to use land more effectively and that there was a responsibility on the part of the City to foresee these future trends within the planning and development activity. Mr. Paul Tuerr appeared as a delegation to object to City wide duplexing. He recollected how as a homebuilder he had sold housing over many years to property owners that was designated as single family dwelling and contended that no one should have the right to take away from those property owners what they had paid for. He suggested that a referendum be held to ask the citizens their views on the subject. In response to Councillor K. Redman, Mr. Tuerr pointed out that it took years to build the housing inventory that the City has and that for 47 years he had followed an approval process with regard to development of single family homes and this process should be valued and not discarded. PD 96/23 -ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION 961091TCIJW - CITY INITIATED REVISION TO BY-LAW 85-1 - APARTMENTS IN HOUSES (CONT'D) APRIL 22, 1996 PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES - 59 - CITY OF KITCHENER Mr. John Cunningham appeared as a delegation and advised that he lived within the Central Frederick Neighbourhood. In reference to the licensing (registration) issue he advised that such proposal would require snitching and noted that most people were reluctant to do that. As to the duplex matter he advised that the neighbourhood went through a consultation process, reached a compromise and asked that the Committee not second guess earlier decisions but stand with original proposals. Mr. Gary Windsor appeared as a delegation to express his support for the duplex issue which he stated represented today's planning standards and concepts that should be supported. He commented that the cost of housing and other economic issues support the need for duplexes in order that people may have affordable accommodation. Dr. Desta Leavine appeared as a delegation to request that single family dwellings remain as such and not be subject to duplexing. She suggested that the need for duplex type accommodation was one that originates within the City of Toronto and was not a solution to achieving additional housing accommodation in the City of Kitchener. She also commented that the zoning argument to look upon semi-detached housing and duplex housing as one and the same seems logical. Mr. Graham Dare appeared as a delegation and commented that he had purchased his home in an area restricted to single family dwellings. He expressed concern that the City was being overly pro active in forecasting future trends and suggested that there was no implicit harm in having areas that are somewhat restrictive in their housing form. He recommended that the City not act until there was pressure for multi family development within R-2 areas. No other delegations responded to an invitation from the Chair to address the Committee on this matter. Since the alternatives listed on page 10 and 11 of staff report PD 96/23 were the basis of the recommendation in the staff report to approve the zone change and zoning by-law, it was agreed to consider each alternative separately. Councillor J. Ziegler proposed a motion to accept Alternative 2F which would amend the by-law to prohibit duplexes in existing R-2, R-3 and R-4 zones but permit duplexes on a minimum of 50% of the lots in new R-2, R-3 and R-4 development areas. Councillor Ziegler commented that he originally supported prohibition but it was achieved with Alternative 2F, as individuals would have the right to choose an area with the zoning they desire. Councillor M. Yantzi stated that he was opposed to Alternative 2F in that he objects to assumptions that are made in regard to duplexing. Councillor Ziegler noted that when the issue was dealt with previously, the only area of controversy had been Alternative 2A. It was agreed to hold over consideration of the options listed under Alternative 2 in the staff report and deal with recommended Alternatives 1 B, 3C, 4A and 5A. On motion by Mayor R. Christy, Alternative lB which deletes the provision allowing a second unit in semi-detached houses and townhouses was accepted. On motion by Councillor M. Wagner, Alternative 3C which provides for a minimum lot width of 10.5 metres (34.4 feet) and a minimum lot area of 325 m2 (3500 sq. ft) for duplexes was accepted. On motion by Mayor R. Christy, Alternative 4A which does not propose any change to the by-law and allows continuation of tandem parking and one parking space to be provided less than 6 metres from the street line was accepted. Councillor B. Vrbanovic stated that he was in favour of licensing (registration) of duplexes and proposed a motion in favour of Alternative 5B which requires second units to be licensed, in the same manner as group homes under the authority of the Municipal Act as provided for in Bill PD 96/23 -ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION 961091TCIJW - CITY INITIATED REVISION TO BY-LAW 85-1 - APARTMENTS IN HOUSES (CONT'D) 20. Councillor G. Lorentz was opposed as the building permit issuance process would provide the necessary regulation. In response to Councillor Jake Smola who questioned if the Fire APRIL 22, 1996 PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES - 60 - CITY OF KITCHENER Department supported licensing, Mr. J. Hancock stated that personally he supported licensing. Mr. J. Witmer noted that the issue of licensing deals with second units that were either created previous to provincial legislation or converted illegally thereafter. Councillor Jake Smola questioned if the onus was on the owners of duplexes to obtain a license and Mr. J. Shivas advised that it would be. Also, it would ensure that safety standards were addressed. In response to Councillor Jake Smola, Mr. J. Hancock confirmed that there was no requirement for annual inspection of apartments in houses and that staff were only dealing with complaints. Councillor John Smola stated that he supported some type of licensing procedure and that licensing of existing units should be considered. Councillor B. Vrbanovic stated that licensing would promote safety and facilitate a method of dealing with some of the problems that may arise. Mr. T. McCabe suggested Alternative 5B be accepted in principle subject to a staff report on administration, implementation, costs and fees being considered by the Finance and Administration Committee. Councillor M. Yantzi favoured deferral of Alternative 5B to allow for more discussion after provincial legislation is proclaimed. Councillor B. Vrbanovic amended his motion respecting Alternative 5B to approve it in principle subject to consideration of a staff report dealing with administration procedures, costs and fees. Councillor J. Ziegler noted that an issue that should be questioned would be the frequency of licensing requirement. Councillor B. Vrbanovic's revised motion to approve Alternative 5B in principle subject to a staff report was voted on and lost. No further motion was proposed in reference to the licensing alternatives listed in the staff report. On motion by Councillor J. Ziegler - it was resolved: "That the Planning and Development Department be directed to investigate the feasibility of administrative procedures and fee structure related to requiring registration for duplex dwellings and report back to the Planning and Economic Development Committee." The motion proposed earlier by Councillor J. Ziegler to accept Alternative 2F was considered. Councillor T. Galloway stated that the results of a survey that he undertook found that 80% of respondents were negative toward duplexing. He expressed support for people having the right to certainty of the zoning they buy into and for the principle of buyer beware based on due diligence. Councillor Galloway suggested 50% duplexing in new subdivisions was reasonable and workable. He also suggested that site specific zone change for duplexing could be at no cost. Finally, he asked that the issue of density and intensification be looked at in the broad context and that it be noted that while more R-5 zoning exists in the inner city, more R-6 and R-7 zoning exists in the outer areas of the City. Mayor R. Christy commented that all areas should be treated the same and that it must be remembered that developable space is limited and that every effort should be made to minimize municipal costs. Councillor J. Ziegler's motion to accept Alternative 2F was lost on a recorded vote with Councillors Jake Smola, J. Ziegler, C. Weylie, T. Galloway and G. Lorentz voting in favour while Mayor R. Christy and Councillors M. Wagner, M. Yantzi, B. Vrbanovic, K. Redman and John Smola voted against the motion. On motion by Councillor M. Wagner Alternative 2A which makes no distinction between serviced residential zones and continues to permit second units where single detached dwellings are permitted subject to the availability of municipal sanitary sewer was accepted on a recorded vote with Mayor R. Christy and Councillors M. Wagner, M. Yantzi, B. Vrbanovic, K. Redman and John Smola voting in favour while Councillors J. Ziegler, Jake Smola, T. Galloway, C. Weylie and G. Lorentz voted against the motion. PD 96/23 -ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION 961091TCIJW - CITY INITIATED REVISION TO BY-LAW 85-1 - APARTMENTS IN HOUSES (CONT'D) Councillor M. Wagner asked that staff develop a guide illustrating procedures step by step that clarify requirements to legally duplex a property. PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES APRIL 22, 1996 - 61 - CITY OF KITCHENER The recommendation contained in the staff report recommending approval of the zone change application and the proposed by-law dated March 21, 1996 was then considered. On motion by Councillor M. Wagner - it was resolved: "That Zone Change Application ZC 96/09/TC/JW (City of Kitchener), representing revisions to Zoning By-law 85-1, dealing with prohibiting second dwelling units in semi-detached houses and street townhouses, and dealing with revised regulations for duplexes, be approved in the form shown in the attached "Proposed By-law", dated March 21, 1996, subject to the following condition: That prior to any readings of the amending Zoning By-law, the provincial legislation (Bill 20), repealing the Residents' Right Act (Bill 120), be proclaimed. It is the opinion of this Committee that approval of this application is proper planning for the City." 2. ADJOURNMENT On motion, the meeting adjourned at 10:10 p.m. L.W. Neil, AMCT Assistant City Clerk