February 19th, 1973.

to require non-combustible construction above’ 2 + reoreys: in the RM-L, RM-2, c- 7
and C=4 zones; slay tro equire elevators so the elderly can be | abtotuodated® ia
buildings above 2 storeys; |

and conmeniing with respect to (a) and (b) respectively:

"In order that more flexibility in the RS-1 zone on smaller lots-can be accon-
modated*a revision to the Zoning By-law covering site locations and setbacks should
be pursued. “this item will come back to the Committee: after the information is
prepared and a ciscussion with the Solicitor is held." |

| "The regulations requiring non-combustible construction and elevators in. the
multiple areas will be dealt with in the next Planning & Zoning meeting."

A discussion ensued: and Albrman Teaboulay inquired if the Chairman of the
Planning & Zoning Committee would substantiate. the. popularity. claim of 33" wide
lots. Alderman. Ranger advised that these are very “popubr pri | marily because of the
lesser cost of ‘building a house: on -33") lots; also, -Teducing the. sideyard require-_ a
ments gives the ‘builder more. flexibility.. Alderman Ranger further. advised that. |
people are ‘building houses on 33! lots in the BM-l and RM~2: ‘zones which could re
sult in these houses being - "Nocked. in’. by apartments, and that he would. like. appr-
oval ‘in principle to proceed with changing. the building requirements to. eliminate -
this type of construction in the RM-1 and RM-2 zones. Alderman Thompson séumen-_
ted that on 33’ lots where it may not be possible to install front entrance stairs,
and there is only a 6' sideyard, the landing and stairs could project quite a dis~
tance into ‘the sideyard, which would not be very desirable if’ the landings between.
two adjacent houses coincided. The Planning Officer agreed and stated that & more
complete. and detailed report would be forthcoming. on this. matter if the, Gouncil
agreed with ‘the principle involved. His Worship the Mayor pos inted out. . that the
discussion has. been quite lengthy. on a subject that was submitted for information.
only, and suggested that if it is to continue, -the proposals be either approved in =
principle or recommended in principle and referred back to the Committee for fur

ther report.

Moved by Alderman Ranger:

Seconded by Alderman Thonpson:
‘That the proposed Zoning By-law regulation changes as outlined in Item 1(2)
of the Planning & Zoning Committee report, February 14th, 1973, be approved in

principle pending receipt of further reports. oe 7 ‘Carried.
Aldermen Meyer and Traboulay voted against the resolution.

Moved bY. Alderman Ranger:

Seconded by Alderman Meyer:

That the - proposed ening By-Law regulation changes as outlined : in “Item Eb)