ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT

TO:

Standing Committee on Planning and Environment

FROM:

Subdivision Approving Officer

SUBJECT:

Proposed Amendment to Subdivision By-law No. 5208 Reclassification of Property at 2502 West 33rd Avenue

 

RECOMMENDATION

GENERAL MANAGER'S COMMENTS

COUNCIL POLICY

Council Policy regarding amendments to the subdivision categories in the RS-1, RS-1S, RS-3, RS-3A, RS-5, RS-5S and RS-6 Zoning Districts is reflected in the Manager's Report as approved by Council on October 28, 1987. As well as establishing seven parcel size categories for subdivision in the RS-1 District, the report provided for possible future changes in the categories in cases where property owners seek to reclassify their parcel category either up or down, to facilitate or prevent subdivision.

PURPOSE

This report addresses a proposal to reclassify the property at 2502 West 33rd Avenue from Category `D' to Category `A' for the purpose of subdivision in accordance with the minimum parcel size requirements of Schedule A, Table 1, of the Subdivision By-law.

BACKGROUND

On January 19, 1988, Council enacted an amended Schedule A to the Subdivision By-law by introducing seven categories of minimum parcel width and area to govern the subdivision of lands zoned RS-1. Subsequently, lands zoned RS-1S, RS-3, RS-3A, RS-5, RS-5S and RS-6 have been included as well. All lands in these zoning districts are classified on a block-by-block basis, as shown on 279 sectional maps which are on file with the City Clerk and which form part of Schedule A.

As shown in Appendix A, the parcel which is the subject of this reclassification request is classified as Category `D', which prescribes a minimum width of 18.288 m (60.00 ft.) and a minimum area of 501.676 m² (5,400.00 sq.ft.) for each parcel created by subdivision. There is, therefore, no opportunity for the subject parcel to be subdivided, as the parcels to be created would not meet the minimum width or area requirements.

This application for reclassification has been submitted by the property owner of the subject parcel. As noted above, it is the owner's intention to subdivide the site if the proposed reclassification of the site to Category `A' (minimum width of 9.144 m (30.00 ft.) and minimum area of 278.709 m² (3,000.00 sq.ft.)) is approved.

NEIGHBOURHOOD NOTIFICATION

Eighteen property owners in the immediate area were notified in writing of this reclassification request. Six property owners responded with the following results:

Support Reclassification: 2
Oppose Reclassification: 4
No response: 12

Only three owners provided comments with their responses. Two of the owners in opposition felt that the subdivision of this site would negatively affect the existing neighbourhood ambience, and lead to increased density, traffic and parking problems. One of the owners in support cited a need for additional `affordable' housing in the area. A map showing the location of the respondents is available for Council to review.

ANALYSIS

The reclassification process was established to allow property owners the opportunity to pursue a change in the classification of their properties, especially in situations where there was strong neighbourhood support. The demonstrated opposition and lack of response represents inadequate neighbourhood support in this instance.

There have been no subdivisions in this blockface since the deposit of Plan 2977 in 1909. Category `C' and `D' standards for subdivision in the immediate vicinity of the subject property reflect the predominant parcel patterns and ensure that subdivisions will be consistent with those patterns. The subdivision of the subject property to create two parcels, each with a width of approximately 10.880 m (35.70 ft.), would be inconsistent with the predominant parcel patterns. Further, if this reclassification is approved, a precedent would be established potentially allowing for further reclassification requests in this area and elsewhere.

CONCLUSION

On the basis of the established pattern of subdivision, the lack of neighbourhood support, and the precedent to be established, there is no convincing rationale for changing the category of Lot 11 to a smaller standard. Therefore, the Subdivision Approving Officer does not support the reclassification of Lot 11 from Category `D' to Category `A'.

NOTE FROM CLERK: Appendix A (Map) not available in electronic form - on file in the City Clerk's Office.

* * * * *