HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD-152-91 THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF NEWCASTLE
DN: OPENING.GPA REPORT
Meeting: General Purpose and Administration Committee File # D14 X310 �-O
Gate: Monday, July 8, 1991
Res. #
By-Law#
Report#:PD-152-91 File#:
Subject. EXAMINATION OF WINDOW OPENINGS AND
DECK SETBACK REQUIREMENTS
FILE: PLN: 4.1.2
Recommendations:
It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and
Administration Committee recommend to Council the following:
1. THAT Report PD-152-91 be received; and
2 . THAT Staff be authorized to proceed to arrange for a public
meeting to deal with a proposed amendment with respect to
regulations of second storey decks .
1. BACKGROUND
1 . 1 At its meeting of June 3, 1991, General Purpose and
Administration Committee requested Staff to review the Town's
Comprehensive Zoning By-law with respect to the issue of decks,
and window and door openings and their proximity to adjacent
properties . Committee had expressed a concern for invasion of
privacy due to the proximity of these items and structures
relative to abutting property lines and dwellings .
2. SIDE YARD WINDOW OPENINGS
2 . 1 Issue:
There is considered to be a possible 'privacy' concern relating
to windows in their location relative to openings of an adjacent
dwelling (ie. where a dining room or living room window in the
side yard aligns directly with a similar such window on the
abutting house) .
2 .2 Legislative Requirements:
Window and door openings and their proximity to the property line
. . . .2
PvE Env«
INS PONfEDUI FECYCI£D PAPE❑
4'
REPORT NO. PD-152-91 PAGE 2
are governed by both the Ontario Building Code (directly) and the
Town's Comprehensive Zoning By-law 84-63, as amended
(indirectly) .
2 .2 . 1 The Building Code does not permit any openings (windows or
doors) within 1.2 m (4 . 0 ft) of the property line. Beyond
this distance the numbers of openings permitted is
calculated based on the total area of all openings as a
percentage of total wall area.
2 .2 .2 The Town's Comprehensive Zoning By-law regulates the setback
of the entire dwelling and does not address openings as a
separate and specific issue. The smallest minimum yard
setback in all cases is the sideyard which is a minimum of
1 .2 m (4 feet) . In effect, there is a minimum of 2 .4 m (8 .0
ft. ) separating two dwelling units, save and except linked
dwelling units . The only exception to this minimum being
where an individual is successful in obtaining a minor
variance to reduce the yard requirement, or a zoning
amendment is approved introducing a special exception zone.
2 .2 . 3 Staff examined the provisions of the Planning Act and it
appears that window or door openings is not the type of
issue that can be addressed through the Zoning By-law. The
Building Code therefore is the governing legislation in the
regulating of window and door openings .
2 .3 COMMENTS
2 . 3 . 1 Staff have liaised with other Region of Durham and
Metropolitan Toronto municipalities to investigate what
action if any was taken by other municipalities to deal with
this issue. Apparently none of the municipalities contacted
have taken any measures to address the issue identified.
2 . 3 .2 Staff are of the opinion that the current dwelling setback
. . . .3
REPORT NO. PD-152-91 PAGE 3
requirements stipulated in the Town's Comprehensive Zoning
By-law, in conjunction with the regulations specified in the
Ontario Building Code provide adequate separation between
dwelling units and their related openings . In consideration
of the constraints of the existing legislation, Staff
suggest no further action be taken on this matter.
3 REAR AND SIDE YARD DECKS
3 . 1 Issue:
Decks projecting from second floor openings of residential
dwellings appear to be causing privacy concerns . These decks are
well above the height of a privacy fence ( 1 . 8 m (6 .0 ft) ) and in
some instances large enough to accommodate a large number of
people.
3.2 Legislative Requirements:
3 .2 . 1 In determining the minimum setback a deck may have to the
property line the current zoning by-law provisions, Section
3 . 1(I) (i) states:
"balconies, canopies, unenclosed porches, steps or
. patios may project into any required front, side or
rear yard to a distance of not more than 1 .5 metres,
but in no instance shall a required sideyard be reduced
to below 1 .2 metres. "
This provision requires the 1. 2 m (4 .0 ft. ) setback to the
side yard property line be maintained similar to the siting
of a dwelling. Therefore, decks are not allowed in a side
yard that encroaches within 1.2 metres of the property line
except where a successful minor variance application or a
site specific zoning amendment is granted. However, there
is no height or size requirements governing second storey
decks .
. . . .4
�� 7 7
REPORT NO. PD-152-91 PAGE 4
3 . 2 . 2 The Building Code is not as restrictive as the zoning by-
law in the case of separation between property line and
decks that form part of a single family dwelling, semi-
detached dwelling and/or a duplex. In addition, the
Building Code does not restrict the size or height of decks
in these dwelling types.
3 . 3 COMMENTS
3 . 3 . 1 It is clear that the municipality can regulate decks through
the zoning by-law. Staff is of the opinion that the current
by-law is adequate in its regulations except for the fact
that it does not regulate decks projecting from second
storey openings . In order to address the concern of
invasion of privacy, it would appear advisable to impose
certain requirements that would ensure second storey decks
would be a reasonable size in proportion to the size of the
dwelling and to the size of the backyard.
3 . 3 . 2 There are several alternatives available to regulate the
size of a second storey deck, including limiting the size by
a percentage of the size of the rear building wall;
imposing set backs from side and rear yards; imposing
maximum allowable deck area; limiting the length of
projection from the dwelling or a combination of any of the
above. Staff will be examining these alternatives in
further detail .
3 . 3 . 3 In order to proceed further, Staff would recommend Council
authorize the initiation of an amendment to the Town's
Comprehensive Zoning By-law and further proceed to have a
public meeting held in accordance to the requirement of the
Planning Act. Upon approval by Council, Staff will
formulate the proposed regulations and place notices in
local newspapers for the public meeting.
G; L . . . .5
REPORT NO. PD-152-91 PAGE 5
Respectfully submitted, Recommended for presentation
to the Committee
Franklin Wu, M.C. I .P. Lawrenc(i/? Ef Kotseff
DIrector of Planning Chief A)dmoistrative
and Development Officer
CP*FW*cc
*Attach
28 June 1991
' F