The agenda for the March 21 Council meeting includes a report reviewing 4 years of historical data about minor variance applications, specifically those about permeability; and it recommends preparation of amendments to the zoning bylaws for the three Villages based on insight from that data.   I have been patiently waiting for this report as it has been my impression that this criteria in our zoning bylaw i.e. the proportion of permeable surfaces on a lot, is one which is frequently subject to a variance application.  As we are living with climate change and the phenomenon of rainfalls which are more frequent and heavier I am concerned that the variances are potentially setting the stage for flooding on that property or on the neighbours as there is inadequate permeable surface to absorb it.  As I discuss further below there are two specific amendments which I do agree with; but other than that I am not sure about simply reducing the need for minor variance application by modifying the zoning bylaw. I need more information.

As I said above I do agree with two specific amendments mentioned in the report.

• commence using the vernacular of “soft landscaping” and “hardscaping” as opposed to the current terms pervious and impervious; this simple change may eliminate confusion and some poor decisions by homeowners.  I have erred in the past by talking about permeable pavers as a good way of achieving permeability; as pointed out in the report not all permeable pavers are equal and they do need to be maintained. I would not make the mistake of thinking of permeable pavers as softscape. Permeable pavers may still be a good choice but they shouldn’t be counted as part of soft scaping.
• require a 0.6 meter of undisturbed or soft landscaping strip along lot lines also is a very good idea. Such will ensure maintaining existing swales which aid in ensuring drainage patterns are maintained.

I know this is a difficult issue in terms of creating the zoning bylaw criteria as the zoning bylaw is essentially created for the “average” lot in the zone.  It is unrealistic to not acknowledge that some lots will be an exception and that a variance will be desired because of a property owner’s project. If the criteria is too demanding too many property owners will be required to commission engineering work to assess impact of their project to support their minor variance application; this costs that property owner time and money and costs the Township time and resources.  Conversely, if the zoning bylaw is too liberal there is risk of flooding.

As always members of the public can provide feedback and/or register to make deputations; to do so contact clerks@king.ca.