ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT

TO:

Standing Committee on Planning and Environment

FROM:

Subdivision Approving Officer

SUBJECT:

Proposed Amendment to Subdivision By-law No. 5208

 

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 4593 West 5th Avenue (Lot 12 of Lot 1, Block 142, D.L. 540, Plan 5036) from Category C to Category B for the purpose of subdivision in accordance with the minimum parcel size requirements of Table 1, Schedule A, of the Subdivision By-law.

GENERAL SUBDIVISION INFORMATION

The reclassification of a property from one Category to another constitutes an amendment to the Subdivision By-law. Council may amend the Subdivision By-law, but Council has no jurisdiction over the approval or refusal of subdivision applications. The Council-appointed Subdivision Approving Officer has sole jurisdiction over subdivision approvals or refusals, and decisions made by the Approving Officer can only be appealed to the Supreme Court of British Columbia.

BACKGROUND

Prior to 1988, there was one single city-wide minimum width and area standard for subdivision in the RS-1 Zoning District. In 1988, Council amended the Subdivision By-law to create seven categories of minimum parcel width and area to govern the subdivision of lands zoned RS-1. The introduction of subdivision categories eliminated the city-wide standard and allowed for several standards which reflect and reinforce the historic, prevailing subdivision pattern in blocks across the city which vary markedly with regard to parcel size.

In subsequent years, other single-family zones as defined in the Zoning and Development By-law, including RS-1S, RS-3, RS-3A, RS-5, RS-5S and RS-6, have been included as well. The specific subdivision category applicable to lands in these zoning districts is shown on 279 sectional maps which are on file with the City Clerk. The minimum standards for each of the seven categories are shown in the table below.

Subdivision Category

Minimum Width

Minimum Area

A

30 ft. (9.144 m)

3,000 sq. ft. (278.709 m²)

B

40 ft. (12.192 m)

3,600 sq. ft. (334.451 m²)

C

50 ft. (15.240 m)

5,000 sq. ft. (464.515 m²)

D

60 ft. (18.288 m)

5,400 sq. ft. (501.676 m²)

E

75 ft. (22.860 m)

6,750 sq. ft. (627.095 m²)

F

100 ft. (30.480 m)

12,000 sq. ft. (1 114.836 m²)

G

150 ft. (45.720 m)

18,000 sq. ft. (1 672.254 m²)

The reclassification of a property from one assigned category to another is an amendment to the Subdivision By-law. When the categories were introduced, a reclassification process was established in anticipation of property owners seeking to change their parcel-size category, either upwards or downwards in an effort to facilitate or prohibit subdivision.

SUBJECT SITE

As shown in Appendix A, the parcel which is the subject of this reclassification request is classified as Category C, which prescribes a minimum width of 50 ft. and a minimum area of 5,000 sq. ft. for each parcel created by subdivision. The subject parcel, Lot 12, has a width of 80 ft. and an area of 8,990 sq. ft. There is, therefore, no opportunity for the subject parcel to be subdivided at present, as the parcels to be created would not meet the Category C minimum width or area requirements. In some circumstances, the Subdivision By-law does afford the Approving Officer some discretion to relax the minimum requirements for subdivision, but this discretion is not applicable to this parcel.

This application for reclassification has been submitted by an agent for the property owner of Lot 12. If the reclassification to Category B (minimum width of 40 ft. and minimum area of 3,600 sq. ft.) is approved, it is the owner's intention to subdivide the site into two equal parcels, demolish the existing dwelling and construct two new single-family homes.

NOTIFICATION RESULTS

Twenty-two property owners in the immediate area were notified in writing of this reclassification request. Six owners responded to the notification, with one in support of the proposal, and five owners opposed. Comments offered by several of the owners in opposition included concerns regarding:

· increased density
· the loss of the existing character dwelling
· the potential negative impact on property values
· the resulting parcels would maintain lesser widths and areas than the Category C minimum standards

The owner in support did not provide comments. A map showing the location of the respondents is available for Council to review.

SIMILAR RECLASSIFICATION APPROVALS

Parcels on the corner of a block are frequently the subject of reclassification requests, as corner parcels are often larger in width and area.

In March, 1997, Council approved a reclassification on the northwest corner of West 26th Avenue and Highbury Street. As shown in Appendix B.1, the approval of this reclassification resulted in the larger parcel being reclassified from Category C to Category A, and subsequently being subdivided.

In, September, 2001, Council approved an application for reclassification of a property at the corner of East 41st Avenue and Lancaster Street, as shown on Appendix B.2. The corner parcel reclassifications shown on Appendices B.1 and B.2 shifted the classification boundary between adjacent Category A and Category C lands.

As shown in Appendix B.3, Council approved a reclassification application for a parcel at the northeast corner of West 34th Avenue and MacDonald Street, in July, 1994. This corner parcel reclassification is most similar to the current application as it introduced a different Category from any of those existing on adjacent lands. It also permitted the parcels to be subdivided in a manner consistent with the property to the rear, across the lane. The Approving Officer supported all three reclassification applications shown in Appendices B.1, B.2 and B.3.

HISTORY OF SUBDIVISION IN THE BLOCK

The east half of Block 142 was created by the registration of Plan 2322 in 1909, which divided the block in half and created 33 ft. parcels from the middle of the block to Sasamat Street. The west half of Block 142 remained as one large property until 1921, when it was subdivided into 50 ft. parcels, and two larger 80 ft. parcels at the westerly corners (including Lot 12). In 1984, the 80 ft. parcel directly to the north of the subject parcel was given approval for subdivision, and was subsequently subdivided into two 40 ft. parcels. This subdivision occurred prior to the introduction of the Categories. With the exception of this recent subdivision and the re-subdivision of three of the 33 ft. parcels into two parcels at the southeast corner of Block 142, the block remains unchanged.

ANALYSIS

Subdivision categories were assigned in 1988 on a block-by-block basis, to reflect the typical subdivision pattern in the block, and to ensure that subsequent subdivisions would be consistent in width and area with surrounding parcels. In this block, a `mid-block split' was created: Category C was selected for the west half of this block to reflect the existing pattern of predominantly 50 ft. parcels, and Category A was selected for the east half of the block, as it contains predominantly 33 ft. parcels. Category A permits smaller parcel sizes of 30 ft. and 3,000 sq. ft.

Currently, Lot 1 is approximately 65.5% larger in width (80 ft.) and 77% larger in area (8,990 sq. ft.) than the average of the width (48.3 ft.) and area (5,063 sq. ft.) of the parcels in the west half of the block. Should this reclassification be approved and the property subsequently be subdivided, the parcels created would be 40 ft. in width, which is 21% smaller than the average width of the remaining parcels in the west half of the block, and each have an area of approximately 4,495 sq. ft., which is 12% smaller than the average area of the remaining parcels. The resulting parcels will therefore be less inconsistent with the prevailing parcel size in the west half of the block than the current situation.

As previously noted, the identical 80 ft. parcel directly to the north of the subject site was subdivided in 1984 into two 40 ft. parcels. Although this subdivision was approved prior to the establishment of the Categories, it nevertheless created a parcel configuration of some impact in considering the current application. In addition, Council has previously approved reclassification requests for large remaining corner parcels in blocks elsewhere in the city. While the resultant parcels would be smaller than the parcels in Category C in this block, this block is actually made up of parcels of both larger and smaller widths and areas, and is not a pristine block of only larger parcels. In addition, the resulting 40 ft. parcels would be less inconsistent with regard to width and area than the large 80 ft. parcel currently is. Council should note there are other, larger corner parcels in the vicinity of the subject site, also in Category C, which might be the subject of future reclassification requests.

It should be noted that this reclassification request involves a single, larger-than-average parcel remaining in the block. Should the owners of two of the 50 ft. properties in this block submit a request for reclassification, anticipating subdivision into three 33.3 ft. parcels, such a request would be unlikely to be supported by staff.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, staff recommend approval of this application.

Link to Appendices A and B.

* * * * *

pe20030612.htm

Comments or questions? Send us e-mail at info@city.vancouver.bc.ca
© 2002 City of Vancouver