May 10th, 1976

1-65' lot, and 2-67.5' lots which does not conform to the resolution first
quoted above with respect to frontage exemptions which he felt should be
complied with until such time as agreement has been reached on amendments

to the Zoning and Subdivision By-laws relating to reduced frontages. .

Moved by Alderman Laking:

Seconded by Alderman Thompson:

That as recommended in a report from the City Engineer, May 7th, 1976:
1. Application R#3-75 to rezone a portion of City bleck bounded by Langan,
Brown, Warwick, and Taylor, legally described as Block H, Lots 15 and 16,
District Lot 255, Plan 6430, from RS-2 (One-Family Suburban Residential) to
RS-1 (One-Family Residential) be approved.
2. The frontage exemptions required for the property described in
Item 1 above be granted in accordance with the plan submitted to the Council
on May 3rd, 1976.
3. The resolution passed at the May 3rd, 1975 Council meeting respecting

frontage exemption policy be amended to read as follows:

pitied deta ante arene setae tee

"The Council will consider exemptions from parcel frontage requirements
where the proposed parcel meets the Subdivision of Land By~law in every

respect except frontage and where the proposed reduced frontage is not

less than 50 feet." Carried.

Prior to passage of the foregoing resolution, a discussion ensued,

and Alderman Laking pointed out that smaller lots must still meet By-law

,
i
¢
‘
p
‘
he
f
i
h
th
fi

requirements with respect to square footage; otherwise the staff would

have no policy to follow when dealing with developers. Alderman Ranger

2. STE verre

stated his view that it is the responsibility of the Council to establish
a policy with respect to minimum lot size and that of the Approving
Officer to submit requests therefore. Alderman Ranger also stated his
understanding that the Council was in favour of the small and large lot
mix concept and that by passing the resolution proposed, the application
under consideration would simply be postponed until the appropriate By-
law revisions have been made. Alderman Thompson stated he would like to
know what position the Approving Officer would be placed in by the
proposed resolution, and the Approving Officer stated he felt the wording
(not the intent) of the first resolution quoted in his memorandum should
be changed slightly to bring it into conformance with what Council is
able to do in regard to exemptions ~ the only problem as it relates to

this particular rezoning is that notwithstanding the fact that a policy