Shawnee Slopes Concerns

I would like to give everyone a summary of the current issue in Shawnee Slopes/Park, in light of recent emails/concerns raised by residents. The issue was brought to light during the review of Cardel’s Shawnee Park Phase 10 Development Permit application (DP2017-2517) for the area generally north of Shawnee Grove SW and the westernmost portion of Shawnee Road SW, shown here:

 WHAT IS THE ISSUE?

The issue stems from Section 12 (1) below, in the existing DC Bylaw 179D2016. This section requires a minimum building setback of 15 metres from the existing homes to the new homes (since there are no townhouses proposed in this location).

In the original 2012 DC (Bylaw 51D2012), there was an exemption for this particular area that the minimum building setback was 10 metres, enabled by Section 14 (1) (a) as shown below, and identified in the Schedule 2 to the Bylaw. The 20-metre tree protection buffer area was still applicable, but if no trees were being preserved in that area, then new houses could be built 10 metres away from the property line with the existing residences, instead of the 15 metres that is required elsewhere in Shawnee Slopes (per clause 14(1)(c)). The reason that this clause was included is due to the size constraints between the existing residences and the existing park space. In order to fit a private (narrower) street with residential lots on both sides of the street (even shallow lots), the minimum building setback needed to be reduced from 15 to 10 metres.

When the revised DC in 2016 was crafted – primarily to reduce the tree preservation numbers – this clause, along with Schedule 2, was kept in. All of the open houses, draft bylaw reviews, communication with the Community Association, etc. all included this clause, right up until the draft bylaw was transferred from its own document, into the CPC report template, at which point it was deleted. Despite best efforts, City staff have been unable to determine how it was missed/removed. It should be noted, however, that there was no significant discussion about this clause throughout the course of the application since it was simply being carried over from the original DC.

WHAT’S HAPPENING NOW?

Since neither Cardel nor Administration noticed the deletion until very recently, Cardel was under the impression that the 10-metre building setback was in place and submitted their Development Permit for the area with some of the new houses proposed to be built less than 15 metres away from the existing residences. At this time, the Bylaw omission was noticed and City staff determined that the only course of action that could allow the site to be built as expected (with single detached homes) is to amend the DC Bylaw.

Since the deletion was unintentional and occurred in Administration’s hands, it was concluded that a City-initiated Land Use Amendment would be required in order to restore the clause.

To view the bylaws:

BYLAW NUMBER 179D2016

BYLAW NUMBER 5102012

 

Navigation