HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD 35-04PICKERING
REPORT TO
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
Report Number: PD 35-04
Date: October 8, 2004
From:
Neil Carroll
Director, Planning & Development
SUBJECT:
City Initiated Applications to Amend the
Pickering Official Plan OPA 02-003/P and
Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 19/02
To Permit Accessory Dwelling Units in Existing Dwelling Units
Proposed Registration By-law for Accessory Dwelling Units
City of Pickering
Recommendation:
1. (a)
That Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 02-003/P, initiated by the
City of Pickering, to amend Section 3.4(a) to change the definition of net
residential density so that accessory dwelling units are not considered a
dwelling unit for the purpose of density calculations be APPROVED, as
set out in Appendix I to Report PD 35-04;
(b)
That the draft by-law to adopt Amendment 12 to the Pickering Official Plan
to change the definition of net residential density as set out in Appendix I
to Report PD 35-04 be FORWARDED to Council for enactment;
2. (a)
That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 19/02, initiated by the
City ofPickering, to permit an accessory dwelling unit in detached
dwellings and semi-detached dwellings, be APPROVED; as set out in
Appendix II to Report PD 35-04;
(b)
That the draft by-laws to amend Zoning By-laws 2511, 2520, 3036, and
3037, as amended, to permit an accessory dwelling unit in detached
dwellings and semi-detached dwellings including a parking and unit size
standard, as specified in Appendix II to Report PD 35-04 be FORWARDED
to Council for enactment;
3. (a)
That the proposed Registration By-law requiring that an accessory
dwelling unit in a detached dwelling or semi-detached dwelling be formally
registered with the City of Pickering, be APPROVED, as set out in
Appendix III to Report PD 35-04;
(b)
That the draft Registration By-law requiring the registration of an
accessory dwelling unit as set out in Appendix III to Report PD 35-04 be
FORWARDED to Council for enactment.
Report PD 35-04 Date: October 8, 2004
Subject: Accessory Dwelling Units
Page 2
Executive Summary: The Planning & Development Department proposes that the
City of Pickering Official Plan and zoning by-laws be amended in order to permit
accessory dwelling units (ADU) in detached dwellings and semi-detached dwellings
provided the dwelling can satisfy a parking performance and unit size standard. The
Official Plan amendment will provide clarification regarding how net residential density is
calculated when existing dwellings have accessory dwelling units.
It is recommended that the City adopt a registration by-law which will require that all
ADU be registered by the property owners and satisfy the requirements of the Ontario
Fire Code and Ontario Building Code.
Financial Implications: No direct costs to the City are anticipated as a result of the
applications to amend the Official Plan and zoning by-laws to permit ADU in Pickering.
There will be costs associated with a registration by-law in terms of staff administration,
inspections and enforcement/prosecution of illegal accessory dwelling units. A
registration fee is recommended that will help offset the administration of the registration
by-law.
1.0 Back.qround:
1.1 Accessory Dwelling Units benefit the Community
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) also referred to, as "basement apartments",
"accessory apartments", or "in-law suites" are self-contained living areas
(apartments) that homeowners create within their house, making it a house with
two residential dwelling units.
The matter of ADU is a complex issue that needs to be addressed in some
fashion. As with any complex issue there are many different viewpoints that
need to be taken into consideration. ADU provide the community with a supply
of affordable housing without the need for government subsidies.
From an economic point of view, ADU provide additional rental income for
homeowners. From a smart growth perspective, ADU provide additional housing
intensification that will utilize the existing built form and infrastructure. From a
neighbourhood perspective ADU can be seen as having a negative impact due to
concerns with disruptive tenants, on-street parking problems, increased
neighbourhood traffic and perceptions of decreased property values. From a
municipal perspective ADU have caused an administration problem.
Report PD 35-04
Subject: Accessory Dwelling Units
Date:
October 8, 2004
Page 3
1.2
Since most ADU have been built without a building permit or proper zoning they
are illegal. When City staff, particularly Fire Services, inspect an ADU and
require certain improvements, from a life and safety requirement, a building
permit cannot be issued as ADU are not a permitted use. Therefore, a
Fire Marshals order must be obtained to rectify the life and safety issues.
By addressing the issue of ADU the City will be formally taking a position on the
appropriateness of this form of housing. If these applications are approved it
must be realized that certain ADU within the City will not meet the proposed
minimum zoning standards that are being proposed and this will result in
increased enforcement that may result in prosecutions and eviction of tenants. If
these applications are refused, the City should then take appropriate action to
address existing illegal ADU which could result in prosecutions.
ADU have become over time an important element in the overall municipal
housing supply. The City of Pickering, along with most other urban municipalities
in Ontario, are experiencing a shortage in affordable rental housing with
construction of these types of units making up a very small portion of new
dwelling units. This, combined with the overall Iow rental vacancy rate, has
resulted in a shortfall of affordable rental housing. ADU have filled some of the
gaps in the shortfall of affordable rental housing.
Staff have prepared a Discussion Paper on ADU that outlines the numerous
topics associated with ADU (see Attachment #1).
Public Meetings
The subject applications have been the subject of two public consultation process
and comments have been received on the proposed applications. The first formal
Statutory Public Meeting on the proposal was held November 21, 2002, (see text
of Information Report No. 31-02 and Meeting Minutes, Attachments #2 and #3).
In consideration that the applications were City initiated, it was concluded that a
second formal Public Information Meeting take place to forward the staff
recommendations including a draft of the proposed Official Plan amendment,
zoning by-law amendment and registration by-law. This second formal
Statutory Public Meeting was held on June 10, 2004 (see text of Information
Report No. 07-04 and Meeting Minutes, Attachments #4 and #5). The majority
of people who spoke at the second public meeting were in support of the
applications to permit ADU.
Report PD 35-04
Subject: Accessory Dwelling Units
Date: October 8, 2004
Page 4
1.3
1.4
2.0
2.1
Public Comments
At the time of the first Public Information Meeting, written comments had been
received from three citizens, all expressing opposition to the proposal to permit
ADU in existing dwelling units (see Attachments #6 to #9).
During the processing of the second Public Information Meeting, written
comments have been received from two citizens, expressing opposition to the
proposal to permit ADU in existing dwelling units (see Attachments #10 and #11).
Agency Comments support ADU
The Region of Durham has advised that the proposed applications are in
conformity with the Durham Region Official Plan, there are no concerns from a
servicing perspective and that no provincial interest appears to be affected by the
applications (see Attachment #12). The Region has advised that the subject
applications have no significant Regional or Provincial concerns, therefore the
Official Plan amendment application is exempt from Regional approval.
The Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority has advised that they have no
concerns with permitting ADU. They have expressed a concern that if an
existing dwelling unit is located within hazard lands, then it must be
demonstrated that the hazard could be appropriately addressed to ensure that an
increase exposure will not result (see Attachment #13).
No other circulated agency has advised of any concern or objection to the
applications.
Discussion
Discussion Paper was available for Review
As noted, Staff have prepared a Discussion Paper on ADU that outlines the
numerous topics associated with ADU and provides a staff comment on the
topics. The Discussion Paper overviews the identified issues related to the
Official Plan and zoning by-law amendments (land use issues) as well as the
issues related to a registration by-law (administrative issues). This Discussion
Paper on ADU is attached as Attachment #1 to this report. A few of the
significant issues are outlined below.
Report PD 35-04
Subject: Accessory Dwelling Units
Date:
October 8, 2004
Page 5
2.2
2.3
2.4
ADU have existed illegally for Numerous Years and must be recognized
for safety and legal reasons
ADU have existed in Pickering for numerous years. They have been constructed
in existing dwelling units without the benefit of a building permit or complying with
existing zoning regulations, and possibly Building Code and Fire Code
requirements. This could result in tenants living in unsafe and substandard living
environments. The result is that the vast majority of accessory dwelling units are
probably created illegally. ADU are not currently formally tracked or registered in
the City, so it is not known exactly how many dwellings currently contain an ADU.
The City is usually made aware of possible illegal ADU by complaints from
neighbours, inspection of a property by the Fire Services Division, through the
review of building permit plans for alterations to existing dwellings or through real
estate advertisements.
All ADU should be inspected to ensure that minimum safety standards are
complied with. By recognizing ADU from a zoning perspective, a registration
requirement would then enable the City to require that all ADU be properly
inspected and comply with all safety requirements prior to being registered.
Dwellings with ADU require a total of Three On-Site Parking Spaces
In permitting ADU there is a need to provide additional parking beyond the two
spaces commonly required by existing zoning for residential dwellings.
Additional parking should be provided entirely on the private property on an
appropriate hard surface and should not encroach onto the municipal boulevard.
It is being recommended that a dwelling with an ADU provide a total of three
parking spaces on the lot containing the dwelling with the ADU.
Detached and Semi-detached Dwelling Units to be allowed an ADU
A residential lot should be of sufficient size to accommodate certain needs of the
residents of both the main dwelling unit and the ADU. This includes a lot that can
provide a dwelling structure that can accommodate the two dwelling units,
appropriate outdoor amenity space and sufficient space to accommodate the
parking requirements. Detached dwelling and semi-detached dwellings have
sufficient lot area to accommodate the minimum spacial requirements for two
dwelling units. Almost all freehold townhouse dwelling units are on lots smaller
than lots that contain detached dwellings and semi-detached dwellings.
Townhouse dwelling units are unable to provide the necessary special
requirements for an accessory dwelling unit in terms of lot size. Therefore it is
recommended that only detached dwellings and semi-detached dwellings shall
be permitted to have ADU as of right.
Report PD 35-04 Date: October 8, 2004
Subject: Accessory Dwelling Units
Page 6
2.5 ADU should be Subordinate to the Main Dwelling Unit
ADU should be accessory/subordinate to the main dwelling unit of the house.
The main dwelling unit should be just that, the main dwelling unit. To ensure that
an ADU remains subordinate a unit size restriction is required. An ADU may
have a maximum unit size of one hundred (100) square metres. This regulation
is essential to ensure a large single or semi-detached dwelling does not establish
an ADU that would be capable of providing two dwelling units in a house where
both dwelling units are of such a size that they could accommodate a large
household. The recommended zoning by-law amendments shall include
provisions that restricts the maximum size of an ADU to one hundred (100)
square metres.
2.6 Dwelling with a Home-Based Business shall not be permitted an ADU
When an ADU is established in a dwelling, the intensity of activity is increased on
the property. An activity increase is also present when a home-based business
is established in a dwelling unit. The combined activity increase of both an ADU
and a home-based business could have negative impacts on the neighbourhood
and therefore should not be permitted. A dwelling that has a home-based
business shall not be permitted to have an ADU and a dwelling with an ADU shall
not be permitted a home-based business. Furthermore, and ADU shall not be
permitted a home-based business. The recommended zoning by-law amendments
shall include provisions that prohibit both an ADU and a home-based business in
the same dwelling unit.
2.7
Amendments required to Official Plan and City Zoning By-laws and
establishment of a Registration By-law to implement recommendation
Official Plan
An Official Plan amendment is required to clarify the calculation of net residential
density. An amendment to the Official Plan is recommended that will enable the
introduction of accessory dwelling units without affecting permitted residential
densities. A copy of the proposed Official Plan amendment is attached as
Appendix I to this report.
Zonin,q By-law(s)
A zoning by-law amendment is required to the four (4) parent zoning by-laws in
order to permit ADU.
Report PD 35-04
Subject: Accessory Dwelling Units
Date:
October 8, 2004
Page 7
2.8
2.9
The proposed amendments would include new definitions and a performance
standard that must be satisfied for a detached dwelling or a semi-detached
dwelling to qualify for an ADU. This would include the requirement to provide a
total of three (3) parking spaces on private property for any dwelling unit that has
an ADU, a maximum ADU size of one hundred (100) square metre~ and that a
ADU cannot be combined with a home-based business. A copy of the four
zoning by-law amendments are attached as Appendix II to this report.
Registration By-law
The Municipal Act provides municipalities with the ability to require the
registration of ADU on a one-time only basis, including a registration fee. A copy
of the proposed Registration by-law is attached as Appendix III to this report.
Registration would entail inspection, thereby assuring the City that existing ADU
conform to the applicable Fire and Building Codes, and allowing residents within
those homes to be potentially safer in threat of fire.
Enforcement of Zoning and Registration requirements must be done to
ensure compliance
By addressing the issue of ADU the City will be formally taking a position on the
appropriateness of this form of housing.
Should the applications to permit ADU be approved, certain ADU within the City
will not meet the proposed minimum zoning standards that are being proposed.
This will result in increased enforcement that may result in prosecutions and
eviction of tenants.
Should the applications to permit ADU be refused, City action will be required to
investigate and eliminate existing illegal ADU, which could result in prosecutions.
Registration By-law Required and Associated fee to be established
The Municipal Act provides municipalities with the ability to register ADU. A
registration system would also constitute an inventory of ADU, with the
requirement for ADU to be registered. A registration by-law shall specify the
standards that a house with an ADU must meet to be eligible for registration.
The greatest benefit of a Registration system is that it compels homeowners to
declare the existence of their ADU. Registration would entail inspection, thereby
assuring the City that existing ADU conform to the applicable Fire and Building
Codes, and allowing residents within those homes to be potentially safer in threat
of fire.
Report PD 35-04
Subject: Accessory Dwelling Units
Date: October 8, 2004
Page 8
3.0
A homeowner would apply for registration, and if the ADU complied with all
applicable laws it could become registered. A registry system provides the only
mechanism through which the municipality can require owners to come forward
and have the municipality inspect their ADU for compliance with the applicable
legislation.
Provincial legislation provides municipalities the opportunity to charge a one-time
registration fee for ADU. It is anticipated that the fees municipalities charge be
directly related to the cost of implementing the registration system. It is
anticipated that a typical application for registrations would incur a staff cost of
approximately $500. Therefore, it is recommended that the registration fee of
$500 be charged for each application to register an ADU. As an incentive to
register, it is being proposed that the registration fee be reduced to $250 for
approximately the first six months after the adoption of the registration by-law.
Conclusion
ADU currently exist throughout the City in most neighbourhoods even though the
existing zoning does not permit them. ADU provide an important component of
the municipal housing inventory. ADU should be recognized and be permitted by
the zoning by-law in detached and semi-detached dwellings. In allowing ADU as
a permitted use they should be regulated to ensure they meet a minimum safety
requirement. To ensure compliance all ADU owners should be required to
register the ADU by the adoption of a registration by-law.
APPENDICIES:
Appendix I: Draft By-law to adopt Amendment 12 to the Pickering Official Plan
Appendix I1: Draft Zoning By-law Amendments to Zoning By-laws 2511, 2520, 3036
and 3037
Appendix II1: Draft Registration By-law
Report PD 35-04
Subject: Accessory Dwelling Units
Date:
October 8, 2004
Page 9
Attachments:
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
Discussion Paper on Accessory Dwelling Units
Text of Information Report No. 31-02
Minutes from November 21, 2002 Statutory Public Information Meeting
Text of Information Report No. 07-04
Minutes from June 10, 2004 Statutory Public Information Meeting
Resident Comment- B. Emerson
Resident Comment- Pat & Dan Bates
Resident Comment- Pat & Dan Bates
Resident Comment- Pat & Dan Bates
Resident Comment- Pat Bates
Resident Comment- George Espley
Agency Comments - Region of Durham
Agency Comments - Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority
Prepared By:
Ros~ Pym, MClF(/R'PP '
Principal Planner- Development Review
Lynda ~ Taylor, MCl/I~, RPP
Manager, Developrfient Review
RP:ld:jf
Attachment
Copy: Chief Administrative ¢)fficer
Fire Chief 1
Recommended.~i~th~'~onsideration of
Pickerin~ Ci~~_.~
,-Thomas J. Qu~Vk, dministrative Officer
Approved / Endorsed By:
Director, Planning & Development
Appendix I to Report # PD 35-04
DRAFT BY-LAW
TO ADOPT OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT 12
TO THE PICKERING OFFICIAL PLAN
THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING_~
Being a By-law to adopt Amendment 12 to the Official Plan for the
City of Picketing. (OPA 02-003/P)
WHEREAS pursuant to the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.p. 13, subsections 17(22) and
21(1), the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering may by by-law adopt
amendments to the Official Plan for the City of Pickering;
AND WHEREAS pursuant to Section 17(10) of' the Planning Act, the Minister of
Municipal Affairs and Housing has by order authorized Regional Council to pass a
by-law to exempt proposed area municipal official plan amendments from its approval;
AND WHEREAS on February 23, 2000, Regional council passed By-law 11/2000 which
allows the Region to exempt proposed area municipal official plan amendments from its
approval;
AND WHEREAS the Region has advised that Amendment 12 to the City of Pickering
Official Plan is exempt from regional approval;
NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING
HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:
That Amendment 12 to the Official Plan for the City of Pickering, attached hereto
as Exhibit "A", is hereby adopted;
2. That the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to forward to the
Regional Municipality of Durham the documentation required by Procedure:
Area Municipal Official Plans and Amendments;
o
This By-law shall come into force and take effect on the day of the final passing
hereof.
BY-LAW read a first, second and third time and finally passed this
,2004.
day of
David Ryan, Mayor
Bruce Taylor, Clerk
Exhibit "A" to By-law
AMENDMENT 12
TO THE
CITY OF PICKERING OFFICIAL PLAN
AMENDMENT 12 TO THE PICKERING OFFICIAL PLAN
PURPOSE:
LOCATION:
BASIS:
The purpose of this Amendment is to change the definition of
net residential density so that accessory dwelling units are
not considered a dwelling unit for the purpose of density
calculations in order to permit an accessory dwelling unit
within certain detached dwellings without affecting the
density of the detached dwellings.
The Amendment affects all areas within the municipality of
the City of Pickering.
The Council of the City of Pickering is satisfied that
accessory dwelling units are appropriate in certain detached
dwellings and this amendment is appropriate as it will permit
accessory dwelling units without changing the density
calculation.
ACTUAL
AMENDMENT:
The Pickering Official Plan is hereby amended by:
Section 3.4(a) is deleted and replaced with the following:
3.4(a)
net residential density as the total number of
dwellings per hectare of net residential site
area, and shall not consider accessory dwelling
units as dwelling units for the purpose of
calculating density;
IMPLEMENTATION:
The provisions set forth in the City of Pickering Official
Plan, as amended, regarding the implementation of the
Plan shall apply in regard to this Amendment.
INTERPRETATION:
The provisions set forth in the City of Pickering Official
Plan, as amended, regarding the interpretation of the
Plan shall apply in regard to this Amendment.
Appendix II to Report # PD 35-04
DRAFT
ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENTS
TO PERMIT ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS
Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 19/02
THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING
BY-LAW NO.
DR FT
Being a By-law to amend Zoning By-law 2511, as amended to
implement the Official Plan of the City of Pickering, Region of Durham.
(A 19/02)
WHEREAS the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering deems it desirable to
permit an accessory dwelling unit in detached and semi-detached dwellings within the
City of Pickering;
AND WHEREAS amendment of By-law 2511 is therefore deemed necessary;
NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING
HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:
1. TEXT AMENDMENT
(1)
Section 2, DEFINITIONS, is hereby amended by adding thereto the
following definition:
2.1.1 ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT
(2)
Accessory Dwelling Unit shall mean one self contained dwelling
unit contained within a permitted detached dwelling or
semi-detached dwelling.
By adding a new Section 5.33 as follows:
5.33 Accessory Dwelling Unit
2. BY-LAW 2511
Despite any provision in this By-law to the contrary, in any zone
that permits a detached dwelling or a semi-detached dwelling an
accessory dwelling unit is permitted within the detached dwelling
or semi- detached dwelling provided:
(a) a total of three (3) parking spaces are provided on the
property where the accessory dwelling unit is located;
(b) the maximum floor area of an accessory dwelling unit shall
be one hundred (100) square metres;
(c) a home-based business is prohibited in either dwelling unit of
a dwelling containing an accessory dwelling unit.
By-law 2511, as amended, is hereby further amended only to the extent necessary
to give effect to the provisions of this By-taw. Definitions and subject matters not
specifically dealt with in this By-law shall be governed by the relevant provisions of
By-law 2511, as amended.
3. EFFECTIVE DATE
This By-law shall come into rome in accordance with the provisions of the Planning Act.
BY-LAW read a first, second and third time and finally passed this day of
,2004.
David Ryan, Mayor
Bruce Taylor, Clerk
THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING
BY-LAW NO.
D AFT
Being a By-law to amend Zoning By-law 2520, as amended to
implement the Official Plan of the City of Pickering, Region of Durham.
(A 19/02)
WHEREAS the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering deems it desirable to
permit an accessory dwelling unit in detached and semi-detached dwellings within the
City of Pickering;
AND WHEREAS amendment of By-law 2520 is therefore deemed necessary;
NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING
HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:
1. TEXT AMENDMENT
(1) Section 2, DEFINITIONS, is hereby amended by adding thereto the
following definition:
2.1.1 ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT
(2)
Accessory Dwelling Unit shall mean one self contained dwelling
unit contained within a permitted detached dwelling or
semi-detached dwelling.
By adding a new Section 5.33 as follows:
2. BY-LAW 2520
5.33 Accessory Dwelling Unit
Despite any provision in this By-law to the contrary, in any zone
that permits a detached dwelling or a semi-detached dwelling an
accessory dwelling unit is permitted within the detached dwelling
or semi- detached dwelling provided:
(a) a total of three (3) parking spaces are provided on the
property where the accessory dwelling unit is located;
(b) the maximum floor area of an accessory dwelling unit shall be
one hundred (100) square metres;
(c) a home-based business is prohibited in either dwelling unit of
a dwelling containing an accessory dwelling unit.
By-law 2520, as amended, is hereby further amended only to the extent necessary
to give effect to the provisions of this By-law. Definitions and subject matters not
specifically dealt with in this By-law shall be governed by the relevant provisions of
By-law 2520, as amended.
3. EFFECTIVE DATE
This By-law shall come into force in accordance with the provisions of the Planning Act.
BY-LAW read a first, second and third time and finally passed this
,2004.
day of
David Ryan, Mayor
Bruce Taylor, Clerk
THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY 0~~T
BY-LAW NO.
Being a By-taw to amend Zoning By-law 3036, as amended to
implement the Official Plan of the City of Picketing, Region of Durham.
(A 19/02)
WHEREAS the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering deems it desirable to
permit an accessory dwelling unit in detached and semi-detached dwellings within the
City of Pickering;
AND WHEREAS amendment of By-law 3036 is therefore deemed necessary;
NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING
HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:
1. TEXT AMENDMENT
(1)
Section 2, DEFINITIONS, is hereby amended by adding thereto the
following definition:
2.1.1 ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT
Accessory Dwelling Unit shall mean one self contained dwelling
unit contained within a permitted detached dwelling or
semi-detached dwelling.
(2) By adding a new Section 5.32 as follows:
5.32 Accessory Dwelling Unit
Despite any provision in this By-law to the contrary, in any zone
that permits a detached dwelling or a semi-detached dwelling an
accessory dwelling unit is permitted within the detached dwelling
or semi- detached dwelling provided:
(a) a total of three (3) parking spaces are provided on the
property where the accessory dwelling unit is located;
(b) the maximum floor area of an accessory dwelling unit shall be
one hundred (100) square metres;
(c) a home-based business is prohibited in either dwelling unit of
a dwelling containing an accessory dwelling unit.
(d)an accessory dwelling unit is not permitted within an
accessory dwelling that is permitted in Rural Agricultural
Zone.
2. BY-LAW 3036
By-law 3036, as amended, is hereby further amended only to the extent necessary
to give effect to the provisions of this By,law. Definitions and subject matters not
specifically dealt with in this By-law shall be governed by the relevant provisions Of
By-law 3036, as amended.
3. EFFECTIVE DATE
This By-law shall come into force in accordance with the provisions of the Planning Act.
BY-LAW read a first, second and third time and finally passed this
,2004.
David Ryan, Mayor
day of
Bruce Taylor, Clerk
BY-LAW NO.
Being a By-law to amend Zoning By-law 3037, as amended to
implement the Official Plan of the City of Picketing, Region of Durham.
(A 19/02)
WHEREAS the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering deems it desirable to
permit an accessory dwelling unit in detached and semi-detached dwellings within the
City of Pickering;
AND WHEREAS amendment of By-law 3037 is therefore deemed necessary;
NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING
HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:
1. TEXT AMENDMENT
(1) Section 2, DEFINITIONS, is hereby amended by adding thereto the
following definition:
2.1.1 ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT
Accessory Dwelling Unit shall mean one self contained dwelling
unit contained within a permitted detached dwelling or
semi-detached dwelling.
(2) By adding a new Section 5.31 as follows:
5.31 Accessory Dwelling Unit
Despite any provision in this By-law to the contrary, in any zone
that permits a detached dwelling or a semi-detached dwelling an
accessory dwelling unit is permitted within the detached dwelling
or semi- detached dwelling provided:
(a) a total of three (3) parking spaces are provided on the
property where the accessory dwelling unit is located;
(b) the maximum floor area of an accessory dwelling unit shall be
one hundred (100) square metres;
(c) a home-based business is prohibited in either dwelling unit of
a dwelling containing an accessory dwelling unit.
(d)an accessory dwelling unit is not permitted within an
accessory dwelling that is permitted in Rural Agricultural
Zone.
2. BY-LAW 3037
By-law 3037, as amended, is hereby further amended only to the extent necessary
to give effect to the provisions of this By-law. Definitions and subject matters not
specifically dealt with in this By-law shall be governed by the relevant provisions of
By-law 3037, as amended.
3. EFFECTIVE DATE
This By-law shall come into rome in accordance with the provisions of the Planning Act.
BY-LAW read a first, second and third time and finally passed this
., 2004.
David Ryan, Mayor
Bruce Taylor, Clerk
Appendix III to Report # PD 35-04
DRAFT
REGISTRATION BY-LAW
FOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS
THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING
DRAFT
Being a By-law to establish a system for the registration of accessory
dwelling units in the City of Picketing.
WHEREAS pursuant to Section 167(2) of the Municipal Act, R.S.O. 2002, c. M25, as
amended, authorizes municipality, which has the authority to pass by-laws under
Section 34 of the Planning Act may pass by-laws,
(a)
providing for the registration of accessory dwelling units or such classes of them
as may be set out in the By-law and the revocation of registrations; and
(b)
appointing a registrar to register accessory dwelling units in a public register, to
revoke registrations and to perform such other duties related thereto as may be
set out in the By-law.
NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING
HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:
In this
(a)
DEFINITIONS
By-law, ..
"accessory dwelling units" means a second self contained dwelling unit
located within a detached house, or a semi-detached house;
(b) "Inspector" means a Building Inspector, Municipal Law Enforcement
Officer or Fire Inspector appointed by the City of Pickering;
(c) "owner" shall mean the registered owner of the land on which the
accessory dwelling unit is situated;
(d) "Registrar" shall mean the Fire Chief of the City of Pickering;
(e) "residential unit" means a unit that
(i) consists of a self-contained set of rooms located in a building or
structure;
(ii) is used as a residential premises;
(iii) contains kitchen and bathroom facilities that are used only by the
occupants of the unit;
(iv) is used as a single housekeeping unit, which includes a unit in
which no occupant has exclusive possession of any part of the unit;
and
(v) has a means of egress to the outside of the building or structure in
which it is located, which may be a means of egress through
another residential unit;
PROHIBITION
No person shall operate or permit the occupancy of an accessory dwelling unit
unless the owner obtains registration of the house as required by this By-law.
-2-
REGISTRATION APPLICATIONS
(a) To obtain registration, the owner shall:
DR FT
(i)
(ii)
submit a completed application on a form provided by the City of
Pickering;
pay the prescribed fee in the amount set out in sChedule "A" to this
by-law;
arrange for an inspection of both residential units by an Inspector,
and demonstrate compliance with all relevant standards set out in
the Ontario Fire Code, as amended from time to time; and
(iv)
provide bona-fide evidence that the use of the house for the
purposes of more than one residential unit meets the applicable
zoning provisions, or are exempt from such provisions under the
terms of the Land Use Planning and Protection Act, 1996.
(b)
A house which has received approval for an accessory dwelling unit
through the issuance of a building permit or change of use permit under
the Building Code Act, is exempt from the requirements of (a)(iii) and (iv)
of this section where such permit explicitly authorized such use and
satisfactory final inspections have been completed.
(c)
The Registrar shall issue a registration certificate for an accessory
dwelling unit where the requirements of this section have been complied
with, except where the house proposed for registration does not comply
with this By-law or any other applicable law, as determined by the
Registrar.
REVOCATION OF REGISTRATION
(a)
The Registrar may revoke the registration of an accessory dwelling unit
which, at any time after registration, ceases to meet the requirements set
out in this By-law or where the Registrar determines that the registration
certificate was issued based on false or misleading information.
(b)
Where the Registrar revokes the registration of accessory dwelling unit,
notice stating the reason for the revocation shall be given to the owner of
the accessory dwelling unit by regular mail.
ADMINISTRATION OF THIS BY-LAW
The Registrar may designate such persons as are necessary to administer this
By-law.
OFFENCES AND PENALTIES
A person who contravenes any of the provisions of this By-law is guilty of an
offence and upon conviction is liable to a fine as provided for in the Provincial
Offences Act.
BY-LAW read a first, second and third time and finally passed this
,2004.
day of
David Ryan, Mayor
Bruce Taylor, Clerk
DR FT
Schedule "A" to By-law Number. XXXX-04
Registration Fee of Accessory Dwelling Units:
Prior to May 31,2005 $250.00
After June 1, 2005 $500.00
Attachment # 1 to Report PD 35-04
Discussion Paper on Accessory Dwelling Units
Table of Contents
1.0
2.0
3.0
3.1
3.2
4.0
4.1
4.1.1
4.1.2
4.1.3
4.1.4
4.1.5
4.1.6
4.1.7
4.1.8
5.0
6.0
7.0
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.5
8.0
9.0
10.0
Introduction
Financial Implications on the City
Applications to Permit Accessory Dwelling Units
Previous Resident Comments
Agency Comments
Discussion
Response to Issues Identified
Affordable Housing/Social Benefits
On-Site Parking
Lot Size
Unit Type
Safety of ADU
Property Standards
Servicing and Infrastructure
Property Assessment and Municipal Taxes
Official Plan Amendment
Zoning Standards
Registration
Registration Overview
Registration By-law Impacts on City Staffing
Registration By-law Fees
Registration Implementation
Enforcement of ADU
Appropriateness of Planning Act Applications
Appropriateness of a Registration By-law
Conclusion
Attachment # 1 to Report PD 35-04
Discussion Paper on Accessory Dwelling Units
City of Pickering
Page 1
1.0 Introduction
2.0
3.0
This Discussion Paper provides Staff Comments prepared to date for inclusion in
the proposed Planning Report to be prepared for the September 27, 2004
Executive Committee Meeting for Accessory Dwelling Units in the City of
Pickering.
The proposal is to amend the City of Pickering Official Plan and zoning by-laws in
order to permit accessory dwelling units (ADU) in detached dwellings and
semi-detached dwellings provided the dwelling can satisfy certain performance
standards. The Official Plan amendment will provide clarification regarding how
net residential density is calculated when existing dwellings have accessory
dwelling units.
Part of the consideration is that the City investigate the drafting of a registration
by-law which will require that all ADU be registered by the property owners and
satisfy the requirements of the Ontario Fire Code and Ontario Building Code.
Financial Implications on the City
No direct costs to the City are anticipated as a result of the applications to amend
the Official Plan and zoning by-laws to permit ADU in Pickering.
There will be
administration,
dwelling units.
costs associated with a registration by-law in terms of staff
inspections and enforcement/prosecution of illegal accessory
There is a proposed registration fee that will help off-set the cost of staff
administration of a registration by-law. It is anticipated that the registration fee
will not cover all costs associated with all aspects of enforcing the registration
by-law.
It is recognized that a registration by-law will increase the workload of various
Departments within the City. This would include Fire Services, Municipal Law
Enforcement Services, Legal Services and Building Services. This increased
workload should not have an impact on the ability of staff to provide the current
level of service with the existing staff compliment.
Applications to Permit Accessory Dwelling Units
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) are also referred to, as "basement apartments",
"accessory apartments", or "in-law suites" are self-contained apartments that
homeowners create within their house, making it a house with two residential
dwelling units.
Attachment # 1 to Report PD 35-04
Discussion Paper on Accessory Dwelling Units
City of Pickering
Page 2
ADU have existed in Pickering for numerous years, they have been constructed
in existing dwelling units without the benefit of a building permit or complying with
existing zoning regulations, resulting in the vast majority of accessory dwelling
units being illegal. ADU are not currently formally tracked or registered in the
City, so it is not known exactly how many dwellings currently contain an ADU.
The City is made aware of possible illegal ADU by complaints from neighbours,
inspection of properties by the Fire Services Division, through the review of building
permit plans for alterations to existing dwellings or through real estate
advertisements.
The matter of ADU is a complex issue that needs to be addressed in some
fashion. As with any complex issue there are many different viewpoints that
need to be taken into consideration. From a social point of view, ADU provide
the community with a supply of affordable housing without the need for
government subsidizes. From an economic point of view, ADU provide additional
rental income for homeowners. From a sustainability perspective, ADU provide
additional housing intensification that will utilize the existing built form and
infrastructure. From a neighbourhood perspective ADU can be seen as having a
negative impact due to concerns with disruptive tenants, on-street parking
problems, increased neighbourhood traffic and perceptions of decreased
property values. From a municipal perspective ADU have caused an
administration problem. Since most ADU have been built without a building
permit or proper zoning they are illegal. When City staff, particularly
Fire Services, inspect an ADU and require certain improvements, from a life and
safety requirement, a building permit may not be able to be issued as ADU are
not a permitted use. Therefore, a Fire Marshals order must be obtained to rectify
the life and safety issues.
By addressing the issue of ADU the City will be formally taking a position on the
appropriateness of this form of housing. If these applications are approved it
must be realized that certain ADU within the City will not meet the proposed
minimum zoning standards that are being proposed and this will result in
increased enforcement that may result in prosecutions and eviction of tenants. If
these applications are refused, the City should then take appropriate action to
investigate and eliminate all of the existing illegal ADU that staff is aware of
which could result in significant prosecutions and/or evictions.
ADU have become over time an important element in the overall municipal
housing supply. The City of Pickering, along with most other urban municipalities
in Ontario are experiencing a shortage in affordable rental housing. In the past
few years very limited new affordable rental dwelling units have been
constructed. This combined with the overall Iow rental vacancy rate has resulted
in a shortfall of affordable rental housing. ADU have filled some of the gaps in
the shortfall of affordable rental housing.
Attachment # 1 to Report PD 35-04
Discussion Paper on Accessory Dwelling Units
City of Pickering
Page 3
3.1
3.2
4.0
4.1
4.1.1
The issue of ADU is not unique to Pickering, but rather an issue that all
municipalities are dealing with. Certain GTA municipalities have already
addressed the issue and have amended their planning documents to permit
accessory dwelling units in their municipality (Ajax, Oshawa, Clarington,
Newmarket, and Toronto) while other municipalities are currently investigating
the issue (Markham, Burlington, and Whitby).
Previous Resident Comments
These applications were subject to two public consultation process and comments
have been received on the proposed applications. Formal Statutory Public
Meetings on the proposal were held November 21, 2002 and June 10, 2004.
Written comments have also been received from three citizens, all expressing
opposition to the proposal to permit ADU in existing dwelling units. Section 4.0 of
this Discussion Paper identifies the issues that have been identified and a
response is provided.
Agency Comments
The Region of Durham has advised that the proposed amendments are in
conformity with the Durham Region Official Plan, there are no concerns from a
servicing perspective and that no provincial interest appears to be affected by the
applications.
The Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority has advised that they have no
concems with permitting ADU. They have expressed a concern if an existing
dwelling unit is located in hazard lands, then it must be demonstrated that the
hazard could be appropriately addressed to ensure that an increase exposure
will not result.
Discussion
Response to Issues Identified
Affordable Housing/Social Benefits
The supply of affordable housing is an issue that is facing all municipalities. The
supply of affordable housing is not solely the responsibility of the municipal
governments, but rather an issue that involves all levels of government. The
senior levels of government, being the federal and provincial governments are
responsible for set policies and providing access for funding for the construction
of affordable housing.
Attachment # 1 to Report PD 35-04
Discussion Paper on Accessory Dwelling Units
City of Pickering
Page 4
The local governments are responsible for implementing housing policies and
creating appropriate local regulations that encourage the private sector to assist
in the creation of affordable housing. One such method is by implementing
Official Plan polices and zoning by-law regulations that permit the creation of
affordable housing within the community. The subject applications propose to
implement existing Official Plan polices that recognizes the City's responsibility to
assist in the development of affordable housing.
Accessory dwelling units were recently brought to City Council's attention in the
report from the Regional Chair's Task Force on Sustainable/Affordable Housing. One
of the recommendations of the Task Force was that area municipalities be
encouraged to amend zoning by-laws to permit accessory apartments as-of-right
in all detached dwellings, subject to Ontario Building and Fire Codes and local
building codes and standards in order to provide additional affordable rental
housing. The need for additional rental housing is indicated in the vacancy rate for
apartments which is approximately 2.3 percent of all rental apartments.
ADU are cost effective as they utilize existing infrastructure and provide an
alternative form of housing that does not require government subsidization. ADU
also provide affordable housing that is integrated into existing neighbourhoods
and not concentrated in one specific area.
There are numerous social and financial impacts to both homeowner and the
community that result from permitting ADU. One of the most important benefits
is an increase in the amount of rental housing, most of which would be classified
as being affordable. ADU can also be a means of introducing social diversity into
a community by integrating another form of housing into traditional Iow density
neighbourhoods. ADU may provide homeowners with additional revenue to be put
toward the cost of home ownership or home maintenance. The additional revenue
could be especially beneficial for homeowners living on a fixed income, such as
seniors who desire to remain in their home. Some ADU are created in order to
assist in a family issue where family members of the property owner live in the
ADU to assist in either a financial, medical or emotional situation of the other
family member. ADU provide homeowners with flexibility as homeowners can
adapt their home to best suit their changing financial, social and space needs;
this allows homeowners to add or remove an accessory dwelling as their needs
change.
Should Council permit ADU as a permitted use in the City and adopts a
registration by-law, the City will then be in a better position to investigate all
suspected illegal ADU and to require the removal of units that do not meet
minimum municipal standards and that represent a potential danger to their
inhabitants.
Attachment # 1 to Report PD 35-04
Discussion Paper on Accessory Dwelling Units
City of Pickering
Page 5
4.1,2
4.1.3
4.1.4
On-Site Parking
In permitting ADU there is a need to provide additional parking beyond the two
spaces commonly required by existing zoning for residential dwellings.
Additional parking should be provided entirely on the private property on an
appropriate hard surface and should not encroach onto the municipal boulevard.
It is being recommended that a dwelling with an ADU provide a total of three
parking spaces.
The additional parking requirement of the ADU must be accommodated on
private property without undue negative impact on the streetscape. The parking
demands for the average detached dwelling may be less than the demands for a
detached dwelling with an ADU. The City, through review of curb cut requests,
can control the placement of additional parking spaces. Curb cuts should be
reflective of the size of the lots. Therefore on small lots the curb cut are small
and on large lots the curb cut may be able to be increased.
Curb cuts also impact on the amount of space that is available for on-street
parking as the size of the curb cut has a direct relationship to the amount of curb
space there is available for on-street parking.
Lot Size
In terms of the appropriate lot size that can accommodate an ADU the lot should
be able to accommodate certain needs of the residents of both the main dwelling
unit and the ADU. This includes a lot that can provide a dwelling structure that
can accommodate the two dwelling units, appropriate outdoor amenity space and
sufficient space to accommodate the parking requirements.
Unit Type
Having regard for the minimum lot area requirements, it is concluded that only
traditionally Iow density housing types such as detached dwelling and
semi-detached dwellings have sufficient lot area to accommodate the minimum
area requirements for two dwelling units. This includes space for an appropriate
size of the original dwelling, an outdoor amenity space that is appropriately
located and the space to meet the parking standards. Almost all freehold
townhouse dwelling units are on lots smaller than lots that contain detached
dwellings and semi-detached dwellings. Therefore for this type of unit to be able
to provide the necessary special requirements for an accessory dwelling unit
would be rare and an exception to the normal standard. Therefore it is
recommended that only detached dwellings and semi-detached dwellings shall
be permitted to have ADU as of right.
Attachment # 1 to Report PD 35-04
Discussion Paper on Accessory Dwelling Units
City of Pickering
Page 6
4.1.5
4.1.6
Most townhouse developments are already a form of medium density and permitting
ADU in this form of dwelling would have an impact on the neighbourhood.
The standards that are being proposed may not be met by all semi-detached
dwellings. These dwellings are the exception to the standard that exists
throughout the municipality and should be provided the opportunity to have an
accessory dwelling unit. And while it is recognized that municipal wide zoning
by-laws are designed for the general circumstance and cannot take into
consideration all possibilities for the entire municipality there is a process in the
Planning Act that allows for the consideration of minor variances to the by-law.
The Committee of Adjustment could consider applications that do not meet the
letter of the by-law but are considered to meet the intent of the by-law while being
considered to be minor variance and appropriate development.
Safety of ADU
The issue of safety of ADU relates to the fact that the vast majority of ADU that
currently exist in Pickering were built without a building permit and therefore
without a review or inspection of safety requirements. These requirements relate
to the Ontario Building Code, the Ontario Fire Code and Electrical Safety
Authority. This could result in tenants living in unsafe and substandard living
environments. All ADU should be inspected to ensure that the minimum
standards are complied with. A registration requirement would enable the City to
require that all ADU be properly inspected and comply with all safety
requirements prior to being registered.
Property Standards
It is recognized that some existing dwellings that have an ADU are not provided
with the same level of up-keep as neighbouring properties. The concerns relate
to yard maintenance, general building maintenance, excessive garbage, parking
on the front lawn and a general lack of pride of ownership. The majority of these
property standard problems relate to ADU where the property owner does not
reside in the dwelling unit. In instances of absentee landlords and property
standard concern is not a unique issue with dwellings that have ADU, as this
issue can occur in any type of dwelling unit. The City does have a property
standards by-law and does investigate and enforce the by-law when complaints
are received. It is also recognized that the majority of dwellings with ADU are
maintained in a fashion that is comparable to the other dwelling units in the
neighbourhood.
Attachment # 1 to Report PD 35-04
Discussion Paper on Accessory Dwelling Units
City of Pickering
Page 7
4.1.7
4.1.8
5.0
Servicing and Infrastructure
This issue relates to the ability of the existing municipal services and
infrastructure supporting an increase in dwelling units. City staff have consulted
with other municipalities that allow ADU and they all advised that their experience
is that there was not a significant increase in new ADU when their municipality
permitted ADU as-of-right, but rather an increase in the known number of ADU
as existing ADU could be recognized and registered.
Therefore the existing infrastructure will likely be able to support the authorization
of allowing ADU in the City since a considerable number already exist. If over
time ADU are seen to be having an impact on the infrastructure, the design
standards can be updated so that new infrastructure works (both replacement
and new development) will accommodate ADU.
Property Assessment and Municipal Taxes
In reviewing preperty assessment the determining factor for assessment value is
"finished" floor area. An example is that there is no difference in assessment
values between houses with basements that are finished for personal use and
those basements that are finished in order to previde an accessory dwelling unit
previded the level/degree of "finishing" is the same. However, an accessory
dwelling unit may be created without significant imprevements to the existing
dwelling if the entire original dwelling was completed "finished" and only minor
modifications are required in order to create the accessory dwelling unit. The
establishment of most accessory dwelling units does result in imprevements to
the original dwelling that will result in an increase in the assessment value of the
preperty. Since municipal taxes are directly related to property assessment,
should there be an increase in preperty assessment due to the establishment of
an accessory dwelling unit, the municipal taxes for a preperty will also increase.
Since the vast majority of existing houses that contain an accessory dwelling unit
were built without obtaining a building permit it can be assumed that the
preperties have not been preperly assessed and therefore are not being
apprepriately taxed given the imprevements that may have be done in order to
establish the accessory dwelling unit.
Official Plan Amendment
An Official Plan amendment is required to clarify density calculation for houses
that have an ADU. Currently the Official Plan defines net residential density as
the total number of dwellings per hectare of net residential site area.
Attachment # 1 to Report PD 35-04
Discussion Paper on Accessory Dwelling Units
City of Pickering
Page 8
6.0
7.0
7.1
If this definition were to apply to existing detached dwelling units that have an
ADU within them, the density for any specific property would double which may
result in the specific property having a density greater than the permitted limit in
the Official Plan. ADU are proposed to be permitted only in detached dwellings
and semi-detached dwellings and these type of dwelling units are mostly located
in areas designated as Urban Residential Area-Low Density Area which has a
maximum density of up to and including 30 dwellings per net hectare.
Therefore, an amendment to the Official Plan is recommended that will enable
the introduction of accessory dwelling units without affecting permitted residential
densities or the requirement for further Official Plan amendment.
The proposed amendment is to Section 3.4 (a) that would change the definition
of net residential density so that accessory dwelling units are not considered as
dwelling unit for the purpose of density calculations.
Zoning Standards
A zoning by-law amendment is required to the four (4) parent zoning by-laws in
order to permit ADU. The proposed amendments would include new definitions
and a performance standard that must be satisfied for a detached dwelling or a
semi-detached dwelling to qualify for an ADU. These would include the
requirement to provide a total of three (3) parking spaces on private property for
any dwelling unit that has an ADU.
Registration
Registration Overview
The Municipal Act provides municipalities with the ability to register ADU. In
May 1996, when the Land Use Planning and Protection Act (Bill 20) took effect,
the Act that restored the municipal zoning authority to control where ADU may be
created and the standards that would apply also provided municipalities with the
authority to require the registration of ADU on a one-time onlY basis, including a
registration fee. A registration system would also constitute an inventory of ADU,
with the requirement for ADU to be registered.
The greatest benefit of a Registration system is that it compels homeowners to
declare the existence of their ADU. Registration would entail inspection, thereby
assuring the City that existing ADU conform to the applicable Fire and Building
Codes, and allowing residents within those homes to be potentially safer in threat
of fire.
Attachment # 1 to Report PD 35-04
Discussion Paper on Accessory Dwelling Units
City of Pickering
Page 9
7,2
A homeowner would apply for registration, and if the ADU complied with all
applicable laws it could become registered. A registry system provides the only
mechanism through which the municipality can require owners to come forward
and have the municipality inspect their ADU for compliance with the applicable
legislation.
Currently, City staff are made aware of ADU when someone complains to by-law
enforcement or through Fire prevention inspection. Tenants may be aware of
deficiencies in their accessory dwelling unit but reluctant to complain for fear they
will be evicted. As a result, there are undoubtedly many ADU that do not meet
minimum health and safety standards. These are the units that need to be
inspected and the units either fixed up to meet the minimum requirements or the
ADU removed from the house.
The establishment of a registration by-law will place the onus on the property
owner of ADU to register their building with the City. Under the enabling
legislation, both dwelling units must be self-contained dwelling units consisting of
their own kitchen and bathroom. The registration does not apply to buildings that
have been converted to contain three or more dwelling units.
A registration by-law shall specify the standards that a house with an ADU must
meet to be eligible for registration. It must comply with the City's by-laws,
(zoning, property standards, and smoke alarm and carbon monoxide detectors)
the Ontario Fire Code and the Ontario Building Code. These requirements
include matters such as, but not limited to, electrical safety, fire separations,
smoke alarms, carbon monoxide detectors, fire exits, any structural changes to
the dwelling units (such as new or enlarged windows), access and egress,
ventilation, heating and parking.
Registration By-law Impacts on City Staffing
With the adoption of a registration by-law additional responsibilities and workload
will result on certain City staff. It is anticipated that Fire Services Division will
experience the majority of additional workload and will therefore impact on their
allocation of resources. One of the key components of a registration by-law is to
ensure that all ADU meet minimum life and safety requirements. Since most
property owners who apply for registration of their ADU will be for existing ADU
the focus of inspections will be by the Fire Prevention Inspectors. Since
Fire Services will be handling the majority of the inspections it has been
concluded that they would be the administrators of the registration by-law. This
way one department will be responsible for the acceptance of applications,
inspections and approval of ADU.
Attachment # 1 to Report PD 35-04
Discussion Paper on Accessory Dwelling Units
City of Pickering
Page 10
7.3
Fire Services will coordinate with other City department's appropriate inspections
and requirements. Other departments that may experience additional workloads
include: Building Services when there are OBC or building permit issues;
Planning for zoning issues; Municipal Property & Engineering for curb cut
requests and refuse pick-up; Municipal Law Enforcement Services for
enforcement of ADU that do not comply with the zoning by-law of the registration
by-law.
The impacts of a registration by-law are not anticipated to have a significant
impact on the overall operation of different City departments that would result in a
reduction of the level of service provided. Investigations with other municipalities
have indicated that with the adoption of a registration by-law there will not be a
significant number of initial applications to register ADU. It is anticipated that
applications will be submitted on an on-going basis rather than a significant
number of applications being submitted all at one time. It is anticipated that
existing staff will carry out the administration and enforcement of the proposed
registration by-law.
Registration By-law Fees
Provincial legislation provides municipalities the opportunity to charge a one-time
registration fee for ADU. It is anticipated that the fees municipalities charge be
directly related to the cost of implementing the registration system. There is a
concern, however, that imposing too high a registration fee might discourage
residents from registering second units, thereby defeating the benefits of a
registration system; yet too Iow a fee would not adequately reflect the costs of
implementing the registry and conducting the necessary home inspection(s). It is
also not considered appropriate to have the registration system significantly
subsidized by the general taxpayers when the benefit of the ADU is to the
property owner.
The registration fee of other municipalities vary from small fees that would not
cover staff cost (i.e. Oshawa $100, Clarington $150, Oakville $200) to fees that
are intended to recover all costs (i.e. Brampton $900, East Gwillimbury $1000,
Ottawa $1500).
The registration fee should cover the costs of a typical application. This fee
should include the following cost:
receive and review applications for completeness and that all necessary
information is provided;
research and review property history along with factual information such as
zoning;
Attachment # 1 to Report PD 35-04
Discussion Paper on Accessory Dwelling Units
City of Pickering
Page 11
7.4
initial inspection of property and dialogue with property owner and recording
of information on the inspection (inspection could be from Fire Prevention
Inspector, Building Inspector and/or By-law Enforcement Inspector for zoning
and property standard);
follow-up inspection to ensure all deficiencies have been addressed;
preparing final report and issuance of acceptance of the ADU for registration.
It is anticipated that the above typical application would incur a staff cost of
approximately $500. Therefore, it is recommended that the registration fee of
$500 be charged for each application to register an ADU.
As an incentive to register it is being proposed that the registration fee be
reduced to $250 for approximately the first six months after the adoption of the
registration by-law. This initial reduced fee, while not covering all staff cost, is
considered appropriate as it encourages prompt registration by reducing the
registration fee.
Registration Implementation
A registration by-law should identify who the registrar will be. The Fire Chief
should be the official registrar since the by-law is proposed to be administered by
Fire Services. The Fire Chief could delegate the actual administrative duties of
the registrar to other Fire Services staff. Fire Services will receive, circulate and
ultimately register the ADU.
It is anticipated the adoption of the registration by-law will provide a specific date
when the by-law will come into force. This date should be a few months after the
adoption of the registration by-law in order to allow time to disseminate the
information about the requirement to register all ADU. A public information
campaign should be established in order to educate the public about the
requirement to register ADU. This public education process could include ads in
the community page of the local newspaper, information on the City website and
preparation of brochures/information packages. Information packages could be
sent to professionals who deal with property matters in Pickering such as
lawyers, real estate agents, insurance agents, financial institutions and building
contactors to request that they advise their clients to abide by the municipal
by-laws.
The City could also send out letters to all existing dwelling units that are
suspected of having an ADU that advises of the need to register their ADU if in
fact there is one in their dwelling unit.
Attachment Cf 1 to Report PD 35-04
Discussion Paper on Accessory Dwelling Units
City of Pickering
Page 12
7,5
Enforcement of ADU
By way of various public notices, property owners will be advised of the
establishment of a required registration system for ADU. They will be advised
that houses with ADU must be registered by a specific time. After that specific
time By-law Enforcement and Fire Prevention staff will begin to actively enforce
the registration by-law. Any property owner who is found to have an ADU and
not registered will be sent a notice to register. Failure to register the ADU may
result in legal action.
The by-law shall make it an offence to operate or permit the occupancy of an
ADU unless the house is registered. The Province Offences Act provides for a
fine of up to $5000 for contravention of such by-laws.
If an ADU is found that does not qualify for registration because it is located in a
building that is not a detached or semi-detached dwelling the property owner will
be required to remove the ADU or make application to amend the zoning by-law
for a site specific zoning by-law amendment. It is noted that only one ADU will
be permitted per dwelling and any additional dwelling units will be required to be
removed. If property owners fail to comply with the zoning by-law or the
registration by-law regarding ADU legal action may result.
8.0
Appropriateness of Planning Act Applications
The applications to amend the Official Plan and zoning by-laws to permit ADU in
detached dwellings and semi-detached dwellings will facilitate the recognization
of a housing form that will enhance the City's housing stock.
ADU provide additional housing, including some affordable housing and lead to a
more efficient use of land, infrastructure and housing stock. ADU can also
promote neighbourhood diversity. The principle of permitting ADU as
recommended is considered both sustainable growth and creating a "health
community" as it encompasses objectives for social, environmental and
economic well-being.
Attachment # 1 to Report PD 35-04
Discussion Paper on Accessory Dwelling Units
City of Pickering
Page 13
9,0
10.0
Appropriateness of a Registration By-law
The adoption of a registry system for ADU has a variety of benefits including:
Placing the onus on the property owners of ADU to register their buildings
with the City, which will ensure that fire safety standards of the Ontario Fire
Code are complied with and ADU are made safe;
· Preparing a data base which clearly indicates where all lawful ADU exist
within the City;
Providing homeowners with a clear understanding that the ADU occupancy
has been approved by the City and, accordingly, permitting the building to be
marketed in the future as a lawful house with an ADU.
Conclusion
ADU currently exist throughout the City in most neighbourhoods even though the
existing zoning does not permit them. ADU provide an important component of
the municipal housing inventory. ADU should be recognized and be permitted by
the zoning by-law in detached and semi-detached dwellings. In allowing ADU as
a permitted use they should be regulated to ensure they meet a minimum safety
requirement. To ensure compliance all ADU owners should be required to
register the ADU by the adoption of a registration by-law.
PICKERING
INFORMATION REPORT NO. 31-02
FOR PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING OF
November 21, 2002
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PUBLIC MEETING REQUIREMENTS
OF THE PLANNING ACT, R.S.O. 1990, chapter P.13
SUBJECT:
City Initiated Applications to Amend the
Pickering Official Plan (file: OPA 02-003/P) and
Zoning By-laws (file: A 19/02)
To Permit Accessory Dwelling Units in Existing Dwelling Units
City of Pickering
1.0 BACKGROUND
- on June 16, 1997, Pickering Council considered an Interdepartmental
Development Team Report (IDT Report No. 1/97) respecting two units in
housing; City Council, through Resolution #215/97, provided direction to staff
to initiate a zoning review addressing the establishment of new accessory
dwelling units in houses and consider the establishment of a registry for
accessory dwelling units concurrently with its review of the zoning provision;
on June 6, 2002, Pickering Council considered a Planning & Development
report (PD Report No. 25-02) respecting accessory dwelling units in housing;
and City Council, through Resolution #87/02, provided direction to staff to
host a Public Information Meeting to consider both Official Plan amendment
and Zoning By-law amendments to address accessory dwelling units in
certain dwelling types;
- accessory dwelling units in housing has been an issue that most major
municipalities in Ontario have had to address in some manner; it is not known
how many accessory apartments currently exist in Pickering, as there is no
formal mechanism to accurately track this type of residential occupancy and
as the vast majority of existing accessory dwelling units were established
without obtaining a building permit;
- for the purpose of this report an accessory dwelling unit means a second
dwelling unit that is created within an existing dwelling unit but does not
include a second dwelling unit created in an accessory or secondary building.
Information Report No. 31-02
ATTACHMENT # ~ TO
REPORT # PO, 55-C~
Page 2
2.0
3.0
3.1
PROVINCIAL LEGISLATION
- in 1994, the Province of Ontario passed the Residents' Rights Act (Bill 120)
to allow self-contained second units in houses, provided that building,
fire and applicable planning standards were met;
- this law superseded local zoning by-laws and applied to detached,
semi-detached and townhouses located in all zones allowing residential
uses, provided the building was connected to a municipal sanitary
sewer;
this provided all detached, semi-detached and townhouse homeowners
the "as-of right" ability to establish an accessory dwelling unit in their
dwelling if they could meet the applicable building, fire and planning
standards;
- the Ontario Fire Code was also changed in 1994 to include safety
requirements for apartments in houses; homeowners were given a two-
year compliance period to upgrade their houses if they had an existing
accessory dwelling unit;
- the Provincial Government then passed the Land Use Planning and
Protection Act (Bill 20) in May of 1996 which restored the municipal
zoning authority to control where accessory dwelling units may be
created and the standards that would apply; this was the authority that
was lost under the Residents' Rights Act;
as a result, homeowners could not create a new accessory dwelling
unit unless the local zoning by-law permitted such a use; in Pickering
there is no "as-of-right" zone that permits an accessory dwelling unit
and any property owner that proposes to create an accessory dwelling
unit is required to make an application to amend the zoning by-law for a
site specific zone that would allow an accessory dwelling unit.
OFFICIAL PLANS AND ZONING BY-LAWS
Durham Regional Official Plan
- a goal of the housing polices is to provide a wide diversity of residential
dwellings by type, size and tenure to satisfy the social and economic
needs of present and future residents;
specifies that the maintenance and improvement of the existing housing
stock shall be encouraged;
- specifies that intensification is encouraged within existing urban areas;
further the Region in conjunction with the area municipalities will plan to
accommodate approximately 20% of all new population growth through
intensification;
Information Report No. 31-02
ATTACHMENT ~, ~.. TO
REPORT # PD,, .'-'~¢5-04
Page 3
3.2
3.3
- Section 4.3.3 states that Regional Council shall support opportunities to
increase the supply of housing through intensification taking into account
the adequacy of municipal services and the physical potential of the
housing stock; housing intensification shall include, amongst others, the
conversion of single detached dwellings into multiple residential units;
- specifies that local municipalities, such as Pickering, shall ensure the
inclusion of polices and designations to implement the intent of the Plan
including polices to permit the conversion of single detached dwellings
into multiple units;
Pickerinq Official Plan
- the Pickering Official Plan states that City Council shall encourage a
broad diversity of housing by form, location, size, tenure, and cost within
the neighbourhoods and villages of the City, so that the housing needs of
existing and future residents can be met as they evolve over time;
- further, City Council shall encourage the provision of an adequate supply
of housing throughout the City in terms of quantity, quality and diversity,
including the provision of an adequate supply of affordable, rental,
assisted and special needs housing;
- the Pickering Official Plan states in Section 6.4(d) that City Council shall,
zone to permit accessory apartments, garden suites and rooming homes
where appropriate;
while the Official Plan has policies that permit accessory dwelling units,
clarification is required relating to density calculations for buildings
containing accessory dwelling units;
Pickerinq Zoning By-laws
the City of Pickering is currently governed by four (4) parent zoning by-
laws:
- Zoning By-law 3036 covers the portion of the City located between the
Third Concession Road in the north and Highway 401 in the south;
- Zoning By-law 3037 covers the portion of the City located between the
Third Concession Road and the northern limits of the municipality;
- Zoning By-laws 2511 and 2520 covers the portion of the City from the
Lake Ontario shoreline to Highway 401, with Zoning By-law 2520
generally covering the central portion of these lands and Zoning By-law
2511 generally covering the eastern and western portion of these lands;
- none of the parent zoning by-laws permit accessory dwellings as-of-right
in any dwelling units with the exception of the few site specific locations
where property owners have made successful applications to Council for
their specific property;
an amendment to all four (4) zoning by-laws will be required to permit an
accessory dwelling unit in certain types of existing dwelling units.
Information Report No. 31-02
ATTACHMEN? #,,, 2. TO
REPORT # PD .~._~ . 0 ~/'
Page 4
4.0
5.0
HISTORY OF ACCESSORY DWELLINGS IN PICKERING
- accessory dwelling units have existed in Pickering for numerous years,
they have been constructed in existing dwelling units without the benefit
of a building permit or complying with existing zoning regulations,
resulting in the vast majority of accessory dwelling units being illegal;
accessory dwelling units are not currently formally tracked or registered in
the City, so it is not known exactly how many dwellings currently contain
accessory dwelling units;
- the City is usually made aware of possible illegal accessory dwelling units
by complaints from neighbours, inspection of a property by the Fire Services
Division, through the review of building permit plans for alterations to existing
dwellings or through real estate advertisements;
- when a homeowner requests recognition of an accessory dwelling units
within an existing dwelling, a site specific application is required to amend
the zoning by-law to permit the accessory dwelling unit; the City has
processed a few of these applications every year for the past few years;
the City has attempted to track suspected houses that contain accessory
dwellings and has generalized the location of these dwellings to
demonstrate that houses with accessory dwelling units are not isolated to
specific neighbourhoods in the City, but rather they occur in most
neighbourhoods throughout the City (see Attachment #1).
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS IN OTHER MUNICIPALITIES
- the issue of accessory dwelling units is not unique to Pickering, numerous
municipalities have addressed the issue;
- different municipalities have taken different approaches to the issue, from
amending the zoning by-laws to permit accessory dwelling units across
the municipality in different types of existing dwelling units, to prohibiting
accessory dwelling units and enforcing the zoning by-law strictly when
complaints are received;
Attachment #2 is a summary chart of the results of a survey of accessory
dwelling units in other municipalities including all abutting municipalities
and all the Durham Region lakeshore municipalities;
the survey indicates that some municipalities have made recent changes
to their zoning by-laws in order to recognize accessory dwelling units;
- those municipalities that have permitted accessory dwelling units allow
them in detached dwellings and semi-detached dwellings, in most residential
zones that permit detached dwellings and semi-detached dwellings, and
require that one additional parking space be provided;
- most of the municipalities that permit accessory dwelling units also have
established a registration by-law that requires all accessory dwelling units
to be registered with the municipality.
Information Report No. 31-02
ATTACHMENT # ~- , TO
REPOR'I' # PD .~5
Page 5
6.0
7.0
7.1
RENTAL APARTMENT VACANCY RATE
accessory dwelling units were recently brought to City Council's attention
in the report from the Regional Chair's Task Force on Sustainable/Affordable
Housing; one of the recommendations of the Task Force was that area
municipalities be encouraged to amend zoning by-laws to permit
accessory apartments as-of-right in all detached dwellings, subject to
Ontario Building and Fire Codes and local building codes and standards
in order to provide additional affordable rental housing;
the need for additional rental housing is indicated in the vacancy rate for
apartments which is approximately one (1) percent of all rental apartments;
there has not been the creation of a significant amount of affordable rental
housing in the City, lately which further compounds the Iow affordable rental
apartment vacancy rate.
DISCUSSION
General Overview
Community Costs/Benefits
there are numerous social and financial impacts to both homeowner and
the community that result from permitting accessory dwelling units;
one of the most important benefit is an increase in the amount of rental
housing, most of which would be classified as being affordable;
accessory dwelling units can also be a means of introducing social
diversity into a community by integrating another form of housing into
traditional Iow density neighbourhoods;
accessory dwelling units may provide homeowners with additional revenue to
be put toward the cost of home ownership or home maintenance;
the additional revenue could be especially beneficial for homeowners
living on a fixed income, such as seniors who desire to remain in their
home;
some accessory dwelling units are created in order to assist in a family
issue where family members of the property owner live in the accessory
dwelling unit to assist in either a financial, medical or emotional situation
of the other family member;
accessory dwellings provide homeowners with flexibility as homeowners
can adapt their home to best suit their changing financial, social and
space needs; this allows homeowners to add or remove an accessory
dwelling as their needs change;
Information Report No. 31-02
AT'FACHi~ENT #_,, .2. l'O
REPORI # PD__ ~-.~ '0~
Page 6
the creation of accessory dwelling units allows for the intensification of
existing built-up residential neighbourhoods without the consumption of
more land; thus a form of smart growth as new dwelling units are created
that utilize existing municipal infrastructure and do not consume
significant resources in the creation of the new dwelling units;
- from a neighbourhood/community perspective concerns related to
accessory dwelling units are often related to physical or social change;
perceived concerns related to physical changes include reduced property
maintenance, increased traffic and loss of privacy all of which could
possibly result in a decrease of property values;
- concerns related to social changes include fears that lower income
tenants in accessory dwelling units will have a negative effect on the
neighbourhood image;
- although concerns may exist respecting aspects of accessory dwelling
units such as (parking); accessory units occur in most neighbourhoods
without any knowledge of their existence;
Unit Type
when considering the appropriateness of accessory dwelling units there
should be established criteria that any dwelling unit must meet prior to
considering whether the dwelling unit can properly accommodate an
accessory dwelling unit;
all dwelling units (existing and proposed accessory dwelling units) must
meet all requirements of the Ontario Building Code and the Ontario Fire
Code;
the subject property must have sufficient space to accommodate one
additional parking space on the lot and the additional parking space must
be located in such a fashion that the majority of the front yard is not
entirely used as a driveway/parking area;
the subject property must have sufficient amenity space available to
accommodate the outdoor living needs of two dwelling units;
the existing dwelling unit should be of a sufficient size so that the resulting
dwelling unit and the accessory dwelling units will both have appropriate
floor space;
the accessory dwelling unit should be accommodated in the existing
dwelling with no visible physical change to the front fa(;ade of the existing
house;
if the above criteria was used in determining the type of dwelling unit that
may be capable of accommodating an accessory dwelling unit, it appears
that the majority of detached dwellings and some semi-detached
dwellings could meet the mentioned criteria, while dwelling units located
in townhouses or apartments would not be capable of meeting the
criteria;
Information Report No. 31-02
ATTACHMENT # '~ TO
REPORT # PD ~ -0~' -
Page 7
Zonin,q Standards
if accessory dwelling units are to be permitted in the City of Pickering,
there should be certain zoning/performance requirements that must be
complied with prior to an accessory dwelling being an "as-of-right";
accessory dwelling units may be permitted in all zones that permit a
certain dwelling type (such as detached dwelling and semi-detached
dwellings) or accessory dwelling units may only be permitted in certain
existing residential zones;
if an accessory dwelling unit is a permitted use, the requirement to
provide one (1) additional parking space would be a zoning requirement
in addition to the two (2) spaces normally required for the principal
residence;
other possible zoning requirements include: minimum lot area, minimum
lot frontage, minimum floor area for the accessory dwelling unit, location
of required additional parking space; a minimum front yard landscape
area;
the requirement that the property be on full municipal services is being
further investigated;
the requirement that the owner of the property must reside in either the
main dwelling unit or the accessory dwelling unit is also being considered;
Property Assessment and Municipal Taxes
in reviewing property assessment the determining factor for assessment
value is "finished" floor area;
an example is that there is no difference in assessment values between
houses with basements that are finished for personal use and those
basements that are finished in order to provide an accessory dwelling unit
provided the level/degree of "finishing" is the same;
however, an accessory dwelling unit may be created without significant
improvements to the existing dwelling if the entire original dwelling was
completed "finished" and only minor modifications are required in order to
create the accessory dwelling unit;
the establishment of most accessory dwelling unit.,; does result in
improvements to the original dwelling that will result in an increase in the
assessment value of the property;
since municipal taxes are directly related to property assessment, should
there be an increase in property assessment due to the establishment of
an accessory dwelling unit, the municipal taxes for a property will also
increase;
since the vast majority of existing houses that contain an accessory
dwelling unit were built without obtaining a building permit it can be
assumed that the properties have not been properly assessed and
therefore are not being appropriately taxed given the improvements that
may have be done in order to establish the accessory dwelling unit;
Information Report No. 31-02
ATTACHMENT ,f 2. TO
REPORT ~ PD
Page 8
Re.qistration
- when the Provincial Government passed the Land Use Planning and
Protection Act (Bill 20) in May of 1996, which restored the municipal
zoning authority to control where accessory dwelling units may be
created, this Act also provided a method for municipalities to keep a
record of buildings containing an accessory dwelling by adding new
provisions to the Municipal Act;
Section 207.3 of the Municipal Act provides the authority for a by-law to
be passed to require that houses with an accessory dwelling unit be
registered and that an inspection for compliance with safety standards be
a prerequisite for registration;
without a registration by-law there is no requirement that homeowners
advise the City that their building contains an accessory dwelling unit;
- the establishment of a registration by-law will place the onus on the
property owner of a house containing an accessory dwelling unit to
register their house with the City;
- a registration by-law can require that all accessory dwelling units be
inspected to ensure that they comply with all relevant standards set out in
the Ontario Building Code, the Fire Code, the zoning by-law and the
Minimum Maintenance (Property Standard) By-law.
8.0
8.1
8,2
RESULTS OF CIRCULATION
Resident Comments
- no comments from the public have been received as of the date of the
writing of the report;
Aqencv Comments
- no comments from any agency has been received as of the date of the
writing of the report;
9.0
9.1
PROCEDURAL INFORMATION
Official Plan Amendment Approval Authority
- the Region of Durham may exempt certain local official plan amendments
from Regional approval if such applications are determined to be locally
significant, and do not exhibit matters of Regional and/or Provincial
interest;
- at this time, the Region has not yet determined whether this official plan
amendment application is exempt from Regional Approval;
Information Report No. 31-02
ATTACHMENT#,, 2. TO
REPORT # PD~
Page 9
9.2 General
- written comments regarding this proposal should be directed to the
Planning & Development Department;
- oral comments may be made at the Public Information Meeting;
- all comments received will be noted and used as input in a Planning
Report prepared by the Planning & Development Department for a
subsequent meeting of Council or a Committee of Council;
if you wish to reserve the option to appeal the decision on this
Amendment, you must provide comments to the City before Council
adopts any by-law for this proposal;
if you wish to be notified of Council's adoption of any official plan
amendment, you must request such in writing to the City Clerk;
- if you wish to be notified of the decision of the Region of Durham with
respect to the proposed amendment to the Official Plan, you must make a
written request to the Commissioner of Planning, Region of Durham Planning
Department.
10.0 OTHER INFORMATION
10.1 Attachments
Map of Pickering showing suspected areas where accessory dwelling units exist
Summary Chart of how other municipalities deal with accessory dwelling units
ORIGINAL SIGNED BY
ORIGINAL SIGNED BY
Ross Pym, MCIP, RPP
Principal Planner- Development Review
Lynda Taylor, MCIP, RPP
Manager, Development Review
RP:jf
Attachments
Copy: Director, Planning & Development
A~TACHMENTL 3 _ lO
Statutory Public Information Meeting
Thursday, November 21, 2002
7:00 P.M.
The Manager, Development Review, provided an overview of the requirements of the
Planning Act and the Ontario Municipal Board respecting this meeting and matters
under consideration there at.
(IV)
CITY-INITIATED APPLICATIONS TO AMEND THE
PICKERING OFFICIAL PLAN (FILE: OPA 02-003/P) AND
ZONINGBY-LAWS (FILE: A 19/02)
TO PERMIT ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS IN EXISTING DWELLING UNIT-~
o
Ross Pym, Principal Planner, Development Review, provided an explanation of
the application, as outlined in Information Report #31-02.
Dan Bates, 1625 McBrady Cres., feels that a registry of accessory units is an
excellent idea, providing information on density and statistics for emergency
agencies to be aware of residents in a particular home. The amendment need to
distinguish that units are to be used for aged parents but not for renters.
Neighbourhood groups need to be involved in approving such applications so
they have say in process. When renters move in the care of community could be
lost. If residents are renting out their basement than they should be required to
pay business tax.
Gayle Clow, 1811 Fairport Road, stated her support of the application and the
terrific idea to intensify. This would make the City morE; people friendly and
parking permits could be provided giving more revenue to the City.
Pat Bates, 1625 McBrady Cres., suggested having a mechanism to monitor
basement apartments and building affordable housing should be considered.
She questioned why, if individuals did not come forward earlier, they would come
forward now to advise that they have apartments in their homes. She further
stated that if they move how will they know that basement apartments will not be
allowed in their new neighbourhood.
Joyce Herzog, Liverpool West Community Association,, advised that they
understand the philosophy but are concerned that parking problems will occur.
Usually when a grown child comes home they bring a partner along with them
which then requires two additional parking spots not one as stated in the
proposed amendment. She further advised.that families in the neighbourhoods
are becoming older and if apartments were allowed more children would be
brought into the area, maintaining the schools.
PICKERING
INFORMATION REPORT NO. 07-04
FOR PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING OF
June 10, 2004
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PUBLIC MEETING REQUIREMENTS
OF THE PLANNING ACT, R.S.O. 1990, chapter P.13
SUBJECT:
City Initiated Applications to Amend the
Pickering Official Plan (file: OPA 02-003/P) and
Zoning By-laws (file: A 19/02)
To Permit Accessory Dwelling Units in Existing Dwelling Units
City of Pickering
1.0 BACKGROUND
- accessory dwelling unit (ADU) also referred to, as "basement apartment",
"accessory apartment", or "in-law suite" is a self-contained dwelling unit
(apartment) that homeowners create within their house, making it a house
with two residential dwelling units;
- for the purpose of this report an accessory dwelling unit means a second
dwelling unit that is created within an existing dwelling unit but does not
include a second dwelling unit created in an accessory or secondary building;
- accessory dwelling units in housing has been an issue that most major
municipalities in Ontario have had to address in some manner;
it is not known how many accessory apartments currently exist in Pickering,
as there is no formal mechanism to accurately track this type of residential
occupancy;
- the vast majority of existing accessory dwelling units were established without
obtaining a building permit or complying with existing zoning regulations;
- ADU are not currently formally tracked or registered in the City, so it is not
known exactly how many dwellings currently contain an ADU; the City is
usually made aware of possible illegal ADU by complaints from neighbours,
inspection of a property by the Fire Services Division, through the review of
building permit plans for alterations to existing dwellings or through real estate
advertisements;
Information Report No. 07-04
ATTACHMENT
REPORT ~' PD
Page 2
1.1 Previous Public Consultation
- these applications were subject to a public consultation process and
comments have been received on the proposed applications;
- a formal Statutory Public Meeting on the proposal was held
November21, 2002, (see text of Information Report No. 31-02 and
Meeting Minutes, Attachments #1 and #2);
- written comments have also been received from three citizens, all
expressing opposition to the proposal to permit ADU in existing
dwelling units (see Attachments #1 to #4 of the Discussion Paper);
- the Discussion Paper of this report lists the issues that have been
identified and a response is provided;
- in consideration of the complexity of these applications it was
concluded that a second formal Public Information Meeting take place
that puts forward the staff recommendations that included a draft of the
proposed Official Plan amendment, zoning by-law amendment and
registration by-law.
2.0 OFFICIAL PLANS AND ZONING BY-LAWS
2.1 Durham Regional Official Plan
- a goal of the housing polices is to provide a wide diversity of residential
dwellings by type, size and tenure to satisfy the social and economic
needs of present and future residents;
- specifies that the maintenance and improvement of the, existing housing
stock shall be encouraged;
- specifies that intensification is encouraged within existing urban areas;
further the Region in conjunction with the area municipalities will plan to
accommodate approximately 20% of all new population growth through
intensification;
- Section 4.3.3 states that Regional Council shall support opportunities to
increase the supply of housing through intensification taking into account
the adequacy of municipal services and the physical potential of the
housing stock; housing intensification shall include, amongst others, the
conversion of single detached dwellings into multiple residential units;
- specifies that local municipalities, such as Pickering, shall ensure the
inclusion of polices and designations to implement the intent of the Plan
including polices to permit the conversion of single detached dwellings
into multiple units;
Information Report No. 07-04
;-{'r'IACHIVENT #~Ttl
Page 3
2.2
2.3
Pickerinq Official Plan
the Pickering Official Plan states that City Council shall encourage a
broad diversity of housing by form, location, size, tenure, and cost within
the neighbourhoods and villages of the City, so that the housing needs of
existing and future residents can be met as they evolve over time;
further, City Council shall encourage the provision of an adequate supply
of housing throughout the City in terms of quantity, quality and diversity,
including the provision of an adequate supply of affordable, rental,
assisted and special needs housing;
the Pickering Official Plan states in Section 6.4(d) that City Council shall,
zone to permit accessory apartments, garden suites and rooming homes
where appropriate;
while the Official Plan has policies that permit accessory dwelling units,
clarification is required relating to density calculations for buildings
containing accessory dwelling units;
a draft of the proposed Official Plan amendment is provided in the
Discussion Paper on Accessory Dwelling Units (see Attachment #3);
Pickering Zoning By-laws
- the City of Pickering is currently governed by four (4) parent zoning
by-laws:
- Zoning By-law 3036 covers the portion of the City located between the
Third Concession Road in the north and Highway 401 in the south;
- Zoning By-law 3037 covers the portion of the City located between the
Third Concession Road and the northern limits of the municipality;
- Zoning By-laws 2511 and 2520 covers the portion of 'the City from the
Lake Ontario shoreline to Highway 401, with Zoning By-law 2520 generally
covering the central portion of these lands and Zoning By-law 2511
generally covering the eastern and western portion of these lands;
none of the parent zoning by-laws permit accessory dwellings as-of-right
in any dwelling units with the exception of the few site specific locations
where property owners have made successful applications to Council for
their specific property;
- an amendment to all four (4) zoning by-laws will be required to permit an
accessory dwelling unit in certain types of existing dwelling units;
- a draft of an example of a zoning by-law amendment is provided in the
Discussion Paper on Accessory Dwelling Units (see Attachment #3).
Information Report No. 07-04
~EPORT # PD~ ~5 -c~
Page 4
3.0
3.1
4.0
4.1
RESULTS OF CIRCULATION
Agency Comments
Region of
Durham
-that the proposed applications are in conformity with the Durham Region Official Plan;
- there are no concerns from a servicing perspective;
-no provincial interest appear to be affected by the
applications (see Attachment #5 of the Discussion Paper).
Central Lake
Ontado
Conservation
Authority
-that they have no concerns with permitting ADU;
-they have expressed a concern if an existing dwelling unit
is located in hazard lands, then it must be demonstrated
that the hazard could be appropriately addressed to
ensure that an increase exposure will not result
(see Attachment #6 of the Discussion Paper).
DISCUSSION
General Overview
- the matter of ADU is a complex issue that needs to be addressed in some
fashion;
as with any complex issue there are many different viewpoints that need
to be taken into consideration;
- from a social point of view, ADU provides the community with a supply of
affordable housing without the need for government subsidizes;
- from an economic point of view, ADU provides additional rental income
for homeowners;
- from a sustainable development perspective, ADU provides additional
housing intensification that will utilize the existing built form and
infrastructure;
- from a neighbourhood perspective ADU can be seen as having a
negative impact due to concerns with disruptive tenants, on-street parking
problems, increased neighbourhood traffic and perceptions of decreased
property values;
from a municipal perspective ADU have caused an administration
problem; since most ADU have been built without a building permit or
proper zoning they are illegal, therefore, when City staff, particularly
Fire Services, inspect an ADU and require certain improvements, from a
life and safety requirement, a building permit cannot be issued as ADU
are not a permitted use; therefore a Fire Marshals Order must be
obtained to rectify the life and safety issues;
Information Report No. 07-04
REPORT # PD~ .........
Page 5
4.2
4.3
5.0
5.1
Discussion Paper
- staff has prepared a Discussion Paper on ADU that outlines the issues
identified and provides staff comments to date; this Discussion Paper on ADU
is attached as Attachment #3 to this report;
- the Discussion Paper overviews the identified issues related to the
Official Plan and zoning by-law amendments (land use issues) as well as the
issues related to a registration by-law (administrative issues);
- the Discussion Paper also contains the public and agency comments that
have been received on the applications;
the Discussion Paper provides a draft copy of the proposed Official Plan
amendment, an example of a draft zoning by-law amendment, and a draft
registration bylaw;
Registration of ADU
- the Municipal Act provides municipalities with the ability to require the
registration of ADU on a one-time only basis, including a registration fee;
- a registration by-law would compel homeowners to declare their ADU;
- a registration by-law can specify standards that must be met in order to be
eligible for registration;
- registration would entail inspection, thereby assuring the City that existing
ADU conform to the applicable Fire and Building Codes, and allowing
residents within those homes to be potentially safer in threat of fire;
- a registration system provides the City with an inventory of ADU for planning
municipal services and programs and provides emergency response
personnel with advance knowledge of ADU in houses;
a draft of a registration by-law is provided in the Discussion Paper on
Accessory Dwelling Units (see Attachment #3).
PROCEDURAL INFORMATION
Official Plan Amendment Approval Authority
- the Region of Durham may exempt certain local official plan amendments
from Regional approval if such applications are determined to be locally
significant, and do not exhibit matters of Regional and/or Provincial interest;
- the Region has advised that this Official Plan amendment application is
exempt from Regional Approval;
Information Report No. 07-04
Page 6
5.2 General
6.0
6.1
written comments regarding this proposal should be directed to the
Planning & Development Department;
oral comments may be made at the Public Information Meeting;
- all comments received will be noted and used as input in a Planning Report
prepared by the Planning & Development Department for a subsequent
meeting of Council or a Committee of Council;
- if you wish to reserve the option to appeal the decision on this Amendment,
you must provide comments to the City before Council adopts any by-law for
this proposal;
- if you wish to be notified of Council's adoption of any official plan amendment,
you must request such in writing to the City Clerk.
OTHER INFORMATION
Attachments
1. Information Report No. 31-02
2. Minutes of November 21, 2002, Public Information Meeting
3. Discussion Paper on Accessory Dwelling Units
ORIOINAL SIGNED BY
ORIGINAL SIGNED BY
Ross Pym, MClP, RPP
Principal Planner- Development Review
Lynda Taylor, MCIP, RPP
Manager, Development Review
RP:Id
Attachments
Copy: Director, Planning & Development
ATTACHMENT~ ~'~ TO
;:IEPORT # PD. ~ - Excerpts from
Statutory Public Information Meeting
Thursday, June 10, 2004
7:00 P.M.
The Manager, Development Review, provided an overview of the requirements of the
Planning Act and the Ontario Municipal Board respecting this meeting and matters
under consideration there at.
(I)
CITY INITIATED APPLICATIONS TO AMEND THE
PICKERING OFFICIAL PLAN (FILE: OPA 02-003/P) AND
ZONING BY-LAWS (FILE: A 19/02)
TO PERMIT ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS IN EXISTING DWELLING UNIT-~
Ross Pym, Principal Planner, Development Review, provided an overview of
property location, applicant's proposal and City's official plan policies pertaining
to this site, as outlined in Information Report #07/04.
Pat Bates, 1625 McBrady Cres., Submitted by e-mail her remarks and concerns
relating to this application. Her concerns included lack of notification of the
meeting, safety of children, fire concerns, parking, unsafe environment for other
homeowners, lack of incentive to register apartments, and enforcement of by-
law. She suggested that landlords taxes be increased, that the City look at
other options for affordable housing and that the City create more regulated
rental buildings.
Paul Etherington, 4930 Old Brock Road, congratulated staff on their
presentation. He advised that he is a real estate agent and through his work
has come across a lot of basement apartments that are located throughout
Picketing not limited to certain areas. He stated that many are poorly
maintained with poor fire separation and poor electrical work but the occupants
are afraid to complain as they known the units are illegal. He further stated that
the tenant needs an avenue to complain without fear of eviction. He expressed
the need for basement apartments for singles and young mothers as they
generally have lower rental fees. He recommended allowing these units but
require the owner to pay a registration fee.
Alan Arnold, 1032 Mountcastle Cres., disagreed with the statement made by
Mr. Ted Aikins, Planner with the Central Lake Ontario Conservation, stating that
the Authority 'in general does not have any concerns with the type of dwelling
that would be permitted to include an accessory dwelling unit'. He stated that a
side door entry, a large yard and adequate parking should be required when
considering the approval of a basement apartment and that inspections should
also be required by the City, Fire Department and Hydro.
-1-
i-'ICK"E R'iNC,
/A'FIAOHIVIENT #~.~ TO
REPORT ~ PD_ ;5 '~
Excerpts from
Statutory Public Information Meeting
Thursday, June 10, 2004
7:00 P.M.
A report should be prepared by the Fire Department outlining the requirements
needed to bring a previously built apartment up to standard. Apartments must
be registered, regulated, require a building permit, have mandatory inspections
and the owners of the property should pay more taxes.
Don MacKeracher, 501 Rosebank Road, advised that he has a fully licenced
apartment that required a zoning amendment and a building permit. The
application for this amendment resulted in an Ontario Municipal Board hearing
which caused him a great deal of expense but ended with the approval of the
application. He stated his support of this City initiated application.
Grant Morris, 389 Starview Court, stated his support of the report and hopes
Council approves the application. He advised that he defended Mr.
MacKeracher's application at the Ontario Municipal Board and that the approval
of basement apartments is long overdue. He understands that there are 2,000
to 3,000 illegal apartments within Pickering and the City must find a way to
legalize these untis.
-2-
REPOR? ~ PD~ ......
Principal Planner - Development Review, Mr. Ross Pym
City of Pickering
Pickering Civic Complex
One The Esplanade
Pickering, Ontario
L1V 6K7
email rpym~city.pickering.on.ca
Telephone (905) 420-4611
Fax (905) 420-9685
Mr. & Mrs. Bates
1625 McBrady Crescent
Pickering, Ontario
Canada
L1X 2B7
November 28, 2002
email pmbates~rogers, com
Telephone (905) 428-0056
FAX (905) 686-8912
Re: Official Plan Amendment Application OPA02-003/P & Zoning Amendment Application - A19/02
Dear Mr. Pym,
We are writing to indicate that we are opposed to the proposal to amend the City Of Pickering Official Plan
and zoning by-law to permit accessory dwelling units in certain types of existing dwelling units throughout
all lands within the City of Pickering.
Some of our concerns with them have been expressed in the attached letter to Mr. Taylor.
Our main reason to keep them illegal is so that something can be done about the ones that create problems.
We would like the opportunity to express our opposing viewpoint with respect to Information Report No.
31-02, but given such sort notice, and this extremely busy time of year, we will follow up with our other
questions, concerns, and alternate solutions at a later date.
We feel that the notice of such an amendment has not been properly delivered to the homeowners that this
amendment will affect. We understand that the notice of the public meeting on November 21, 2002
appeared only in the News Advertiser in the Community Section twice, on October 23 and November 6.
We were aware of the meeting only because we were told of it when we were attending another zoning
application meeting on the same date. There were only 2 other residents that spoke during the meeting. We
think they were residents that received notification because they belonged to a Rate Payers Association.
Rate Payer Associations were the only homeowners that received a personal invitation. The other
invitations were wasted on businesses and agencies that the application does not affect. Our understanding
is that Rate Payers Associations were created to deal with a specific community issue in the past and that
they are usually made up of only a handful of people, so they would not truly represent their community on
this amendment issue. As there are only about 18 Rate Payers Associations, and they do not exist for all
areas of Pickering, and the ones that exist do not cover all of Picketing, this means that about 90 residents
of a population of 90,000 people were represented. That's only 0.1% representation! How can you make a
fair decision with so little input?
We do not buy the argument that it was too costly to personally notify homeowners. If the City can afford
to spend money on election signs why can't they put up some sort ofrez0ning signs at the entrances to the
neighbourhoods this would affect?
The Pickering Council provided direction to staff on June 6, 2002 to host a Public Information Meeting.
They had ample opportunity to inform residents of the City's intentions at practically no cost via mail. A
notice could have been included with property tax notification, or better yet, with the homeowner
assessments as they are received by all homeowners. Including it with the assessments would have enabled
notice to have easily been sent to only homes that are classed as the possible subject dwellings.
Pickering Council considered a Planning & Development report (PD Report No. 25-02) respecting
accessory dwelling units in housing on June 6, 2002. We have not even seen this report. Why did it take 5
months to "notify" the public and then give them only 1 week after the November 21st meeting to respond
to a meeting whose minutes are not even available on the deadline date?
There are many reasons why we feel the results of the amendment "circulation" produced no comments:
Two notices buried in a community newspaper are not adequate especially since everyone does not
receive it. People expect to find zoning amendments that affect their area posted on a large sign in the
subject area. They expect written notification mailed to their home when the affected area is within a
couple of hundred metres. They are not looking through the newspaper or the city's web site for this
information.
2. Not everyone gets or reads the newspaper, nor does everyone have access to the Internet.
o
While investigating this issue, I searched the City of Pickering's web site for a copy of the Information
Report No. 31-02. I didn't find it but I was surprised to find a copy of the Notice of the Public Meeting
dated October 30, 2002, which was signed by Bruce Taylor. It has the specific contact names,
telephone numbers, addresses, and the deadline date for submissions, all of which were missing from
the Information Report. I would never have thought to look at it ifI didn't already know it affected me.
The fact that the notice exists gives a person the impression that it would have been mailed to those it
affected, and since they didn't receive one, it must not affect them. That is extremely deceiving.
Like us, most people are not familiar with the amendment process and even if they saw the Newspaper
article, they may not have understood it. When I spoke to City Planning staff, I was told that the City
was going to legalize apartments in February or March because Pickering was one of the only
municipalities that didn't allow them. Why would they give me the impression that it was a done deal
when in fact the Information Report shows that the majority of municipalities still consider them to be
illegal? We had no idea that we had any say in the matter.
Not everyone even realizes that basement apartment are illegal. We have received conflicting
information from City Planning staff regarding this issue. Unenforced by-laws compound this belief.
All these are other possible reasons why no one responded to the "circulation".
No one I talked to knew about the Public Meeting and are just as shocked as I am by my summation of
Information Report 31-02. They have not been able to read the report because I couldn't find any extra
copies of it when I attended the meeting. Considering the notice was supposedly expected to be seen
by all residents of Pickering and there were only a few people at the meeting, why weren't there plenty
of extra copies? Why does a person have to already know about the report and then put in so much
effort to get it in order to read it? Even though not everyone has access to the Internet, the City could
have at least posted it on their web site if they actually wanted people's input.
7. People are too busy to attend meetings. They are also reluctant to do so if they lire given the impression
that their appearance will have little or no effect.
Every single homeowner I spoke to said that they would have flipped if they thought that their
neighbourhood homes could be converted into multiple dwelling units. Ifrezoning signs were erected they
certainly would have responded to voice their negative opinion to the proposed amendment. This is because
they bought into a single unit dwelling area and expect it to stay that way, not to have it converted to
multiple dwellings as a means to resolve the affordable housing issue. They, like myself, would like to slow
down urban sprawl and see an adequate supply of affordable housing but the attitude is "not in my
neighbourhood". It is one thing to change the zoning plans of open space, but when housing already exists
that is zoned one way and then rezoned pretty much from one extreme to another, that is shocking and
totally unfair.
If it is an issue of affordable housing then all residents should be given he opportunity to voice their
opinion. A person living in an illegal apartment wouldn't have been delivered the newspaper, so how were
they supposed to find out about the meeting? Maybe renters would prefer to live in regulated,
soundproofed, dwellings in apartment buildings with proper parking and outdoor facilities if that option
was available.
Thorough research should be done before the zoning is amendment is considered in order to avoid
mistakes. A review of unbiased pros and cons of the policies adopted by other municipalities needs to be
addressed.
We request that any further follow through with this amendment should be stopped until more feedback is
received from residents. An alternate response deadline date must be posted for more feedback to occur.
Please send us an electronic copy of the reports: Information Report No. 31-02, IDT Report No. 1/97, and
PD Report No. 25-02.
Sincerely,
Pat (& Dan) Bates
CC.
Mayor Wayne Arthurs, mayor(¢city.pickering.on.ca
Regional Ward 1 Councilor Maurice Brenner, mbrenner~city.pickering.on.ca
Regional Ward 2 Councilor Mark Holland, mark.holland2~sympatico.ca
Regional Ward 3 Councilor Rick Johnson, riohnson~city.pickering.on.ca
Ward 1 Councilor Dave Ryan, drvan@city.pickering.on.ca
Ward 2 Councilor Bill Mclean, bmclean~cit¥.pickering.on.ca
Ward 3 Councilor David Pickles, dpickles~citv.pickering.on.ca
Bruce Taylor, City Clerk, rta¥1orQ¢city.pickering.on.ca
Principal Planner - Development Review, Mr. Ross Pym
City of Picketing
Picketing Civic Complex
One The Esplanade
Picketing, Ontario
L1V 6K7
email rpym@city.pickering.on.ca
Telephone (905) 420-4611
Fax (905) 420-9685
Mr. & Mrs. Bates
1625 McBrady Crescent
Picketing, Ontario
Canada
L1X 2B7
November 28, 2002
em ail pmbates~rogers, corn
Telephone (905) 428-0056
FAX (905) 686-8912
Re: Understanding roles of Pickering, Region and Province with respect to Housing in Pickering
Dear Mr. Pyro,
We are writing to request information to help gain an understanding of what the roles of Pickering, Durham
Region and the Province of Ontario are with respect to housing. We are trying to properly interpret various
City of Pickering Reports and related proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-Law changes so that we can
fully understand the purposes and reasons why the City is proposing those changes.
Could you please provide an explanation/outline of what the mandated role and authority is for each of the
3 levels of government with respect to affordable housing, rental housing, and secondary dwelling units in
main residential dwellings in the City of Pickering.
Sincerely,
Pat (& Dan) Bates
cc. Ward 3 Councilor David Pickles, dpickles~k)cit¥.pickering.on.ca
ATTACHMENT
BEPORT ~ PD~_~
Principal Planner - Development Review, Mr. Ross Pym
City of Picketing
Picketing Civic Complex
One The Esplanade
Pickering, Ontario
L1V 6K7
Mr. Dan Bates
1625 McBrady Crescent
Pickering, Ontario
Canada
L1X 2B7
December 3, 2002
email rpym~city.pickering.on.ca
Telephone (905) 420-4611
Fax (905) 420-9685
email pmbates~rogers, corn
Telephone (905) 428-0056
FAX (905) 686-8912
Re: Official Plan Amendment Application OPA02-003/P & Zoning Amendment Application - A19/02
Dear Mr. Pym,
I am writing to request a correction to the minutes from the Statutory Public Information Meeting of
Thursday, November 21, 2002. With respect to item IV) CITY-INITIATED APPLICATIONS TO AMEND
THE PICKERING OFFICIAL PLAN (FILE: OPA 02-003/P) AND ZONING B Y-LA WS (FILE:A 19/02) TO
PERMIT ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS IN EXISTING DWELLING UNITS, the bullet point "2." for my
comments does not reflect what I felt I said at the meeting.
I believe part of the confusion stems from the fact I was not properly prepared to speak to this topic since I
only become aware of this item at the time of the meeting since I was attending another zoning application
that was a previous item on the agenda.
I would like the minutes corrected to clearly state that I am opposed to the above noted applications.
I did state I believe in the concept of creating and maintaining a registry. My support of the concept is on
the basis that some type of formal "database" would provide more accurate information to support and
enable continuous (versus on a complaint-basis only) enforcement of the City's existing By-Laws against
those accessory dwelling units that are illegal; and also to ensure those "handful" of permitted accessory
dwelling units are frequently checked by various safety agencies (e.g. Fire Department) to ensure they
continue to comply with regulations. I also suggested that the density information put in various City
reports most likely does not take in account the true reality of existing illegal units - this suggests that City
Council is making decisions based on inaccurate information. Again, I want to ensure that it is clear that
I do not agree with the proposed amendments put forth in the City Initiated Applications; I just like
the idea that the City has accurate information before it makes decisions.
I also stated I could understand why some residents would like have to enough finished space in their
residence to care of elderly or sick relatives. I was expressing empathy towards people who may have
genuine humanitarian interests versus those just looking for extra income from rent. However; I did not
intend that comment to be interpreted as my agreeing with the City Initiated Applications - I don't
agree.
I did state that the earlier process I was part of in the evening (i.e. the existing process) for proposed
zoning amendments for additional dwelling units seems to work since you are getting feedback from those
directly involved rather than making decisions citizens don't necessarily agree with. I don't recall saying
"neighborhood groups" in the context of "associations". My intent was that anyone affected in the area
should be allowed to have their say and a right to prevent a zoning amendment - as is now the case. My
point was against the proposed application since it eliminates the process whereby homeowners have to
get approval via an individual zoning amendment application.
I also made the comment that perhaps part of the reason there isn't enough affordable housing in Pickering
is because residential homeowners have an unfair advantage over a business since the residential
ATTACHMENT~ ~ T~
REPORI E PD~~ ......
homeowner doesn't have to pay the same permit fees, taxes, local improvements, business tax, etc. etc. that
a business does. I was trying to make a point against allowing additional dwelling units since the City's
proposal would only add even more roadblocks to any business considering constructing affordable
housing in Pickering. If the City is trying to encourage more affordable housing then perhaps it should do
something to encourage rather than discourage businesses from providing affordable housing!
I trust I've clarified my comments and that it is 100% clear I am opposed to the proposed applications to
amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-Laws. Please make the necessary adjustments to the minutes.
Also, I would like to repeat the previous request from my wife I to please send us an electronic copy of the
reports: Information Report No. 31-02, IDT Report No. 1/97, and PD Report No. 25-02.
Sincerely,
Dan Bates
cc. Bruce Taylor, City Clerk, bta¥1or(¢cit¥.pickering.on.ca
Ward 3 Councilor David Pickles, dpickles(~cit¥.pickering.on.ca
Debbie Kearns, Committee Coordinator, dkearns@city.pickering.on.ca
1064 Moorelands Crescent,
Pickering, Ontario.
L1W 3K4
12mMm~h 2004
The Editor,
News Advertiser,
130 Commercial Ave.,
Ajax, Ontario. L1S 2H5
Dear Sir;
As a person who resides in a so-called single-family dwelling neighborhood, I
would like to voice my objection to the proposed wholesale legalization of basement
apartments. While some of these units may present their own safety issues, in the broader
context, they create a safety hazard for any youngster playing in the street, due to the
physical congestion created by so many additional vehicles parking at the curb.
Inevitably in my opinion, such apartments will significantly lower the value of adjacent
properties.
Consequently, I am particularly upset at the cavalier attitude of local staffers in
the planning department, who are proposing legislation to legalize such apartments,
without first allowing councillors to consulting with their local constituents. Councillor
David Pickles is right to be concerned, but not for the reasons he espouses. Surely, it is
the property owners in each neighborhood who have the right to say 'whether or not a
basement apm~tment adjacent to them is appropriate.
Having bought into a single-family sub-division, I am appalled at the lack of by-
law enforcement in our area. Property owners should not have to voice objections to the
creation of illegal basement apartments, when our existing by-laws do not permit them.
Perhaps it's time to consider suing the town for failing to enforce existing by-laws, for
causing congestion on our streets to the detriment of child safety and indirectly, for
lowering the property values of current home owners.
Yours truly;
George H. Espley
905-509-0194
Pym, Ross
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Pat Bates [pmbates@rogers.com]
June 10, 2004 4:42 PM
Pym, Ross
Pickles, David, Councillor; Taylor, Bruce
Fw: Zoning Amendment Application - A18/02
Dear Ross Pym,
I should have copied you on the following email to Bruce Taylor. I would like it to be part of my (and Dan
Bates) written submission to the City of Picketing.
I would like the City to keep ADU's "illegal" and actually enforce the current by-laws on an as needed basis. I feel
that it is the best way deal with "bad" landlords and/or tenants and still keep others neighbours "safe". It also
means that tenants that do not cause problems can stay where they are rather than possibly be evicted under the
amended proposal. As far as fire safety is concerned, I do not feel that tenants will be significantly more or less
safe. Yet, I feel that the neighbour's safety and positive way of life is at risk in many ways.
I feel that the Information Report should have been created by an unbiased party that does not need to worry
whether they "satisfy certain performance standards" by approving ADU's.
Sincerely,
Pat Bates
..... Original Message .....
From: Pat Bates
To: btaylor_E~city.pickering.on.ca
Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2004 3:58 PM
Subject: Zoning Amendment Application - A18/02
Subject:
Statutory Public Information Meeting June 10, 2004
City Initiated Applications to Amend the Pickering Official Plan (file:OPA 02-003/P) and
Zoning By-laws (file:A 19/02)
To Permit Accessory Dwelling Units in Existing Dwelling Units
City of Pickering
Dear Bruce Taylor,
Thank you for helping me voice my concerns regarding the above application. As I Fnentioned those of us who
wanted to attend cannot because of prior commitments.
I would like to once again voice mine and my husbands opposition to the amendment proposal.
The letter I received regarding this meeting stated that the Information Report was not available until June 4,
2004. I was not able to pick it up until June 9, 2004. I reviewed it today and see that the concerns and issues I
brought up in the past have not been addressed by staff. Although this is short notice, and I just realized it is
impossible to attend this evening's meeting, I would like all those involved in the decision making process to be
made aware of my concerps.
Although my husband and I requested in writing an electronic version of the Information Report from Ross Pym in
2002 on 2 separate occasions, he did not respond to our letters or make us aware that it exists. Although you
informed me on how to access the electronic version, I cannot access it today due to a system error. I would still
10/O6/2OO4
like to respond to many points in the document at a future date. For now I will try mention my main concerns
before my 3:45 pm cut off time.
]. I do not feel that the general public was notified of this meeting or possibility of having their community
changed from single dwelling detached or semi-detached homes to a multi-dwelling neighbourhood. On
April 13th, I thought it was decided that the public would be informed using the numerous notification
methods available. I could not find any notification on the web site (City staff said it did not exist because it
was a special public meeting and not a regular public meeting). The continually checked the News
Advertiser but could not find it listed under the Public Meeting listings (for the same reason it was not on
the web site). Staff helped me find it on the community page in the May 26, 2004 issue, but it was not
noticeable because: a) it was not listed under the Public Meetings b) it was not highlighted to catch a
persons eye like all the other separate items so it looked like it was part of the topic printed above it c) it
was titled "Accessory Dwelling Units" rather than "NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING..."
2. The meeting agenda Attachment # 2 contains a letter stating how the Nov. 21,2002 was not well
publicized and how this issue should be publicized, yet it was ignored and this meeting was published even
less.
2,. The Information Report does not contain an attachment that was part of attachment # 2. It contains
neighbourhood safety issues that the staff should have addressed in their report. I have attached this letter
and highlighted the issues that pertain to basement apartments in general.
4. I do not feel that the possibility of fire safety for tenants in illegal apartments should come at the cost of an
unsafe environment for other homeowners and their families.
.5. Since my last writing, young neighbourhood children have been threatened by a landlord when I finally took
the initiative to ask a few of them to temporarily move their vehicles so my the neighbourhood children
could use the sidewalk. Also, my neighbours current tenants smoke illegal drugs outside when young
neighbourhood children are playing near by. How does the City plan on dealing with these issues? Is there
a way to evict these tenants or stop the irresponsible landlords for renting out their apartments once they're
legalized?
6. I do not feel that simply saying there are enough parking spaces takes care of the parking concerns.
Tenants and landlords do not tend to use what are considered the designated parking spaces. They park
on the road and across the side walk. They do not normally use the garage because it is used as storage
space. They do not park where they block each other off because it is too inconvenient to keep moving
their vehicles. Because of this it is unsafe for pedestrians and clutters the road ways. It also causes a
problem snowploughs. When I have tried to have this dealt with via the parking by-law it has not been
successful. I was told by City staff that they would not usually ticket vehicles blocking the sidewalk because
they come around at night when it is not a problem. It doesn't seem to matter that the same cars are there
when children are trying to walk to school in the morning.
?. Why not use the boulevard for a parking space if the amendment is approved? To me it would be the best
place to add a parking space and keep the main road and sidewalk free.
$. I do not feel that landlords will register their apartments unless the penalty is much higher than the cost of:
registration, the money they save on property taxes by not claiming their finished "basements", the benefit
they get from hiding rental income from Revenue Canada. They must also know that the penalty will be
enforced.
9. I would like to know how many people registered their units during 1994-1996 when they were legal. My
understanding was that it was only a handful. What is the incentive for people to do it now?
10. The taxpayers without rental units should not be subsidizing the registration fee or any cost of
implementation of their legalization. Why should they help the landlords who will benefit from rental
income? Instead, the landlords should have to pay more than what it costs the city (i.e.. more than $500),
by a certain date, and it they don't they should have to pay more.
] ]. What other options does the City have to deal with the affordable housing issue?
12. Why doesn't the City create more regulated rental buildings instead?
].3. How will the City find out about rental units? Will Realtors, etc. be liable for reporting them just as doctors
must report child abuse. I don't see how the city will have the right to enter a property to prove that an ADU
exists. I do not believe that leaving the onus on the landlord has worked in the past, nor will it work in the
future. What are the statistics?
]4. I do not believe tenants will be any "safer" in the case of a fire. Does the fire department not check the
10/06/2004
entire house in the case of a fire or ask whoever is in the house if anyone else is home? How will a registry
change things?
I have much more to say but I have run out of time. I will follow-up once I can access the electronic report.
Thank for your assistance with this matter.
Sincerely,
Pat Bates
10/06/2004
City Clerk, Mr. Brace Taylor
City of Pickering
Pickering Civic Complex
One The Esplanade
Pickering, Ontario
L1V 6K7
email btaylor~city.pickering.on.ca
Telephone (905) 420-4611
Fax (905) 420-9685
Mr. & Mrs. Bates
1625 McBrady Crescent
Pickering, Ontario
Canada
L1X 2B7
email pmbates~rogers, corn
Telephone (905) 428-0056
FAX (905) 686-8912
Re: Zoning Amendment Application - A18/02
Dear Mr. Taylor,
We are writing to express that we are opposed to the proposal to change the existing zoning of 1626
McBrady Crescent to permit the establishment of a second unit in the main dwelling.
We have lived in our home on McBrady Crescent since purchasing it in 1987 when the subdivision was
originally developed. The key reasons for choosing our home were related to safety and neighbourhood
environment. We paid a premium for our lot with no plans of ever moving because we valued the location.
Over time we have seen the degradation of the neighbourhood. Because of this, our valued neighbours
have left or are planning to move as soon as possible. Basement apartments are largely to blame for this
problem. They tend to exist in this neighbourhood because people can not afford their homes. They
fill the main dwelling with extended family and friends, then they rent out the basement to whoever
they can get. They don't care about the neighbourhood, they simply need affordable housing. This
neighbourhood has become known for this and the current house values and new purchasers reflect
this.
We have more than our fair share of people and basement apartments in this neighbourhood already. We
have observed that the large majority of people living in those basement apartments demonstrate a
lack of interest and care in our neighbourhood so there tends to be a increase in theft, litter,
destruction of public and private property, and civil disturbances. There have been many times
where police had to be called to houses on McBrady Crescent that have basement apartments. In
one situation, neighbours had to deal with young offenders, who stole property, threatened mothers
and assaulted one of the fathers. Fortunately the neighbourhood banded together to work with the
Police and the Courts to expel the criminal element from their basement apartment. We do not need
the added worry of having to deal with yet another basement apartment. If the City is trying to
generalize the placement of basement apartments throughout Pickering then new apartments in our
neighborhood should be stopped until the rest of Pickering catches up to the same density of units.
McBrady Crescent should be a premium location in this neighbourhood because of low traffic and
low population. The houses are spaced about 40' apart on average and there are no houses on the side of
the crescent facing Brock Road or Dellbrook Plaza. Also, where there are houses on the outside of the
crescent, there is no sidewalk. This means that under normal circumstances with single family residences
only, cars should not be parked on the road. The only traffic should be for those living or visiting here, thus
allowing children to play safely, they same as they would living on a court. The police said it should be
easy to keep the street safe because it is not a through street and we should be able to recognize
unknown people and vehicles. We can no longer do this because we don't even know who our
neighbours are because there are so many and they change so often.
On top of having to deal with negative experiences with uncaring tenants, we have also experienced
stress in our relationships with some neighbours who bring in basement apartments. An issue that we
may have with their tenants' behaviour becomes an issue with the landowner. As homeowners we
must compromise and get along with our neighbours. A single-family residence means that there
should be only one family per home to deal w/th, and that they should have a vested interest in their
property. That is the reason why single family residences carry the highest premium of all home purchase
options.
We believe that there will be only negative implications in permitting more dwelling units to be
added to the existing houses in the neighbourhood. There does not seem to be any value to the
neighbourhood for allowing second units in single-family dwellings, instead there will be a decrease
in our quality of life and the financial value of our property. The only benefit would be to the
landlord in the form of rental income.
We did not purchase our home in the subdivision designed for mid-sized single-family residential
dwellings with the expectation that the City would then permit changes that would significantly
impact the ability of residents to use and enjoy their property and the neighbourhood as designed in
the original plan.
As per the specific situation with the home at 1626 McBrady Crescent, it is situated on the side of the street
that has a sidewalk and it faces Brock Road. The driveway is already full so there would not be room for
tenant vehicles. The applicant stated at the public meeting that her immediate neighbour at 1624 McBrady
Crescent has a basement apartment that requires cars to be parked on the road, and that she has had
problems with them. Both these homes have the same amount of parking space, yet the applicant appears to
have more family living in her home, so we don't see how she won't add to the parking problem. This
section of McBrady Crescent should have the least amount of traffic and parked vehicles and be the open
area for children to play.
The applicant applied for the rezoning after she had already installed the second dwelling without the
necessary approvals. As basement apartments are illegal in the City of Pickering we would like the City to
take the stance of all Municipalities included in Report No. 31-02 that boarder on Toronto and have the
homeowner remove the illegal unit. By-laws need to be enforced in order for them to have meaning and
deter illegal behaviour.
Please prove wrong our neighbours who say it is pointless to voice their opinion because the City will
not listen anyway, and even if the zoning is not approved that the applicant will still keep the
apartment since the By-laws won't be enforced. Please reward people for their efforts when they take
the time and risk to speak out.
We request that the City turn down the application for the zoning amendment that would allow a second
unit to be added to the main dwelling at 1626 McBrady Crescent.
Sincerely,
Dan & Pat Bates
cc. Mayor Wayne Arthurs, mayor~citv.pickering.on.ca
Regional Ward 3 Councillor Rick Johnson, riohnson@cit¥.pickering.on.ca
Ward 3 Councillor David Pickles, dpickles~ci _ty.pickering.on. ca
Geoff Romanowski, Plannkng Technician, gromanowski _C¢,city.pickering.on.ca
~:1 -EPOflT ~ PDt.:
December 20, 2002
The Regional
Municipality
of Durham
Planning
Department
1615 DUNDAS ST.-E.
4TH FLOOR, LANG TOWER
WEST BUILDING
P.O: BOX 623
WHITBY, ON L1N 6A3
(905) 728-7731
FAX: (905) 436-6612
Ross Pym, Principal Planner
Planning & Development Department
One the Esplanade
PiCkering, Ontario.
L1V 6K7
'Dear Mr. Pym:
Re:
Official Plan Amend'ment Application' OPA 2002-003/P and
Zoning Amendment Application A 19/02
Applicant'. City of' Pickering
Location: All Lands within the City of Pickering
Municipality: City of Pickering
www. region.durham.on.ca
A.L. Georgieff, MCIP, RPP
Commissiener of Planning
"SER VICE EXCELLENCE
for our COMMUNITY"
We have reviewed 'this application and the following comments are
offered with' respect to compliance with the Durham Regional Official
Plan, servicing, and the delegated provincial plan review responsibilities.
The purpose of the applications is to consider amendments to both the.
City of Pickering Official Plan and the City's zoning by-laws'to permit.
accessory dwelling units in certain types of existing dwelling units.
These applications cover all lands within the City of Pickering.
,Durham Reqional Official Plan
The Durham Regionai Official Plan encourages a wide variety of housing
by type~ size, and tenure; Policy 4.3.3 indicates that Regional Council
shall support opportunities to increase .the supply of housing through
intensification, taking into account the adequacy of municipal services
and the physical potential of the housing stOck. Housing intensification
shall include, but not be limited to, the conversion of single detached
dwellings into mUltiple residential units. The proposed amendment is in
conformity with the policies Of the Durham Regional Official Plan.
Servicin_cl
The majority of dwelling units located within the urban area of the city of
Pickering are connected to municipal water and sanitary sewer services.
Therefore, 'in general there are no concerns with the proposal from an
urban servicing perspective.
Similarly, .there are no concerns with the proposal for dwellings located in
the rural area of the City of Pickering. At the time of a submissionfor a
100% Post Consumer
ATTACHMENT
Page 2
building permit to construct a second dwelling unit the property °wner will
haVe to demonstrate private servicing can be achieved on-site, which
meets current O.B.C. requirements, the Regional lot sizing policy and
other pertinent legislation/guidelines.
Provincial Plan Review Responsibilities
No provincial interests appear to be affected by this application.
ThiS application is considered to have no significant Regional or
Provincial concerns. In accordance with Regional By-law 11-2000, this
application is exempt from Regional approval.
Please advise the Commissioner of Planning of your Council's decision.
If Council adopts an Amendment, please forward a record to this
Department within 15 days of the date of'adoption. The record should
include the following:
· TWo (2) copies of the adopted amendment;
· A copy of the adopting by-law; and
· A copy of the staff report and any relevant materials.
If you have any questions or require additional information; please call
me.
Yours truly,
Current Operations Branch
cc. Rob Roy, Durham Region Works Department
Karl Kiproff, Durham Region'Health Department
R:\t rainin g~rciXzoning\picke tin § a19-02&opa02-003.doc
Central
Lake Ontario
Conservation
November 21, 2002
City of Pickering
Planning Department
One the Esplanade
Pickering, ON L1V 5K7
100 Whiting Avenue
Oshawa, Ontario
L1H 3T3
Tel: (905) 579-0411
Fax: (905) 579-0994
Web: www. cloca.com
Email: mail@cloca.com
2 5 2002
Attention: Mr. R. Pym
Dear Sir:
Subject: Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment Applications
OPA02-003/P & A 19/02
City of Pickering
Authority File No.: OPA02-003/P - CLOCA IMS File No.: POFG540
Purpose of Applications:
To permit accessory dwelling units in certain types of existing dwelling units City-wide.
Authority staff has reviewed the subject applications, and in general does not have any concerns
with the type of dwelling that would be permitted to include an accessory dwelling unit. What we
would be concerned with however is the location of the existing dwelling.
Dwellings that are currently located within an area of hazard land should generally NOT be
permitted to create accessory dwelling units therein. Unless demonstrated to the satisfaction of the
respective Conservation Authority that the hazard could be appropriately addressed, and that the
creation of another dwelling unit would not increase exposure of additional persons or property to
damages, all types of existing dwellings within hazard lands should be prohibited from creating
additional dwelling units.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on these applications. If' you have any questions
regarding these comments, please contact the undersigned.
Yours truly,
Ted Aikins
Planner
TA/klt
cc R. White, Toronto Region Conservation Authority
g:\planning\planning\comments\opa02-003 pickering
What we do on the land is mirrored in the water