Part 3: Thoroughly Modern Through-Lots

This is Part 3 in a series. If you haven't already, you can check out Part 1 in "Rumble on Craven Row," and Part 2 in "How About a Craven Row Challenge?"

Gorgeously retro 1970s illustration of a "through lot" from the Peotone, Illinois, Code of Ordinances

Craven/Parkmount Debate Update

At the Sept. 25 Toronto & East York Community Council meeting, Councillor Fletcher proposed and passed a motion for "Allowing Time for a Thorough Review": 

"The direction from City Council at its July 2024 meeting on PH14.13 has generated much interest and attention. City Planning were initially directed to report to the October 24th meeting of Toronto and East York Community Council.  However after the community consultation meeting on September 19th a number of important issues were raised that require additional consideration in the report. 

"Reporting to the October 24th meeting of TEYCC will simply not allow for an in-depth analysis of all the information that has been raised in the short time since that meeting.  This would also allow for City Staff to meet with residents of Craven Road and Parkmount Road." (h/t Matt Elliott)

It's especially good to see they're taking time to consider:

"a. previous public consultation on Garden Suites or Laneway Suites on through lots during the statutory consultations on those by-law amendments;

"b. internal City Planning guidance and interpretation of the Garden Suite and Laneway Suite By-law, including at the Committee of Adjustment; …

"d. any potential modifications to the Zoning By-law to better integrate garden suites onto Craven Road; 

"e. appropriate setbacks for Garden Suites from Craven Road; and

"f. impacts, if any, of any changes to other areas of the City."

That sounds like at least two major concerns raised at the Sept. 19 community consultation will get proper consideration: the belief that studies should have been done beforehand, and the slippery-slope argument that if this is granted, every street in Toronto will be able to claim an exemption. 

Those who claimed the whole thing was a waste of City staff’s time might be less happy, but if this process gives better guidance on through-lots, its benefits will extend to the city as a whole. 

Through-lot cases are rare enough (0.002 or 0.003 of all lots in the city – see the update below) that exemptions for them shouldn't create a slippery slope, and it's important to figure out a reasonable solution now, before the first garden suite is built on the west side of Craven Road and sets a precedent by default.

Setback seems to be a key question:

1. Should the setback be 4.5 to 6.0 metres, as it is for almost all new houses throughout Toronto? (For garden suites where there is a parking space with access from the rear lot line, it's 6.0 metres.) 
   
   
2. Should it be 1.5 metres, as it is when a garden suite is "landlocked" and has no access to a road at all? 
   
   
3. Should Parkmount residents be able to claim that by incorporating a pre-existing garage right on the lot line, they can build with a setback of 0 metres (as was argued in this case)? 
   

Or should a new guideline be set for through-lots (also known as "double frontage lots") like the ones backing/fronting onto Craven Road? This option seems especially appropriate, given that the current bylaw says:

"if [the garden suite] is on a through lot, and a residential building on an adjacent lot fronts on the street that abuts the rear lot line of the through lot, the required minimum rear yard setback for the… garden suite is equal to the required minimum front yard setback for the residential building on the adjacent lot."

This passage seems to indicate an understanding that a garden suite in a Parkmount "rear yard" is, effectively, also a house with a "front yard" on Craven. 

There are no houses fronting on the west side of Craven… yet. But as soon as a garden suite is built at the back of a Parkmount through-lot, there will be. That house's front yard setback would then presumably set the mark for "adjacent lots" as described above. And those would then set the mark for lots next to them, and so on down the row, like dominoes. 

The interpretation and implications of the bylaw's phrase "required minimum front yard setback" seem awfully important here. 

Councillor Fletcher and City Planning deserve our thanks for taking the time to think through these thorny through-lots thoroughly. 

________

Update October 10th: 

In tonight's City Council meeting, starting at the 49:50 mark, Councillor Fletcher asks Chief Planner Kyle Knoeck how many through-lots there are in the city. 

He estimates "between 600 and 700 through-lots in the in the Toronto and East York district," out of a few hundred thousand lots total. (This makes roughly .002 or .003 of all lots.)

Roughly 125 of those 600 lots back onto Craven Road, all the way from Danforth to Queen, of which 50 are in the two-block stretch above the railway tracks where no fence separates them from Craven. 

Agreeing that this is a very uncommon situation, Chief Planner Knoeck said that a review "will allow us to bring forward an evidence-based recommendation on whether there should be any changes to the garden suites bylaw in that very local area."

The motion "Allowing Time for a Thorough Review" passed 17-3. 

This is a positive development, aimed not at removing permissions altogether, but making modifications when building garden suites on these rare lots that back onto city streets, rather than onto alleyways or other backyards. 

Putting conversation with residents on Parkmount and Craven at its core, this review has a good chance to find solutions that will address hopes and fears on both sides of the street.

________

Take a Hike

If all that legalese has you gasping for fresh air, join Johnny Strides on a walk up Craven Road, "Toronto's Most Unique Residential Street?" 

(This is cued up to 28:20 where he reaches the south end of upper Craven, the subject of the current dispute. To see the lower stretch from Queen Street to the train tracks, you can rewind to the 04:25 mark.)