A recent application for minor variances exposed significant weaknesses in the process for dealing with such applications. Very specifically, there was incomplete identification of the status quo and errors in the application. This resulted in individuals registering concerns and/or disagreement to the application and then finding out that the proposal was not really as it was presented.
The whole process must surely have won the prize as one of the most depressing and/or frustrating experiences of dealing with “city hall.” At the end of the day, those who were opposed still do not like the plan but when all the correct information was finally presented, the variances were not as many or as large as had been communicated originally. Accordingly, the Committee of Adjustment approved them.
A review of the Committee of Adjustment process and procedures is underway. I have provided input based on this incident. And, I will be paying close attention to outcomes.
This specific incident also served to demonstrate how limited our bylaws are for protecting and preserving our established communities. The King City Community Plan (paragraph 9.2.5.1)states that changes are to be limited so that replacement homes should “integrate” with the current character of the particular area in which it is located. “Integration” is a wonderful word, but what does it mean?
And our bylaw (74-53) is not as directive as it could be; definitions are too open to interpretation. For example: there are special side setbacks beside a garage. “where a private garage is attached to a single family detached dwelling, a duplex dwelling or a triplex dwelling, then: (i) on the side of the dwelling where the garage is located the minimum side yard shall be 1.2 meters” whereas if it was a two storey, for example, it would be 1.8 m. The bylaw definition for a garage is as follows: “Garage, Private: means a building or part thereof used for the temporary parking or storage of private passenger motor vehicles or commercial vehicles of not more than 0.9 tonnes maximum capacity and wherein neither servicing or repairing is carried on for remuneration.” When I read this definition I don’t see a “garage” with two stories on top, each being 2.7 meters in height as a “garage” requiring a 1.2 meter setback. But, apparently, some do see this as a “garage” and replacement houses are being built accordingly.
I think we need to do some work on our Bylaw.
Debbie, I agree. I think the Zoning By-Law from 1974 needs to be thoughtfully and carefully revised and updated. It needs to reflect the reality of full municipal services which were not available in 1974. Only municipal water was available in 1974. Changes are happening now and I believe updating the by law is an important priority.
I believe a revised Zoning By Law can achieve a reasonable balance between the interest in preserving the overall character of specific existing neighbourhoods and the interest in expanding existing homes or replacing the older smaller homes with larger, modern homes. A revised Zoning By-Law could help preserve the unique character of the many neighbourhoods within King’s communities and provide opportunities for appropriate intensification along the major roadways.
Revising the Zoning By-Law would also provide the opportunity to include policies with “sustainability” in mind – considering permeable and non-permeable surfaces on a lot, landscaping requiring less water and maintenance and adding to the aesthetic appeal of the neighbourhood, and consideration of renewable energy and energy conservation. For example, house design, placement on the lot and landscaping can significantly reduce energy requirements.
It would be helpful to explore what other municipalities are doing in this area, and if needed, King can lead the way and “break new ground” in forward-looking Zoning By-Laws.