Spaces By Rohan
Spaces By Rohan
Are we there yet? – Lane Homes and Detached Rear Dwelling Units, why is it taking so long?
Toronto and Ontario designers, architects, homeowners, builders, small developers, and others are itching to make Lane Homes and Detached Dwelling Units happen.
Here is my recent Lane Home story. At the end of this piece, there are links to contact the key people in the city to get actions happening faster. Please email them to help get us to our desired destination; Legal Lane Homes and Detached Rear Dwelling Structures.
I have been experiencing roadblocks to the approval process with the City. I was able to narrow down the key issues for my projects that the City has not clearly legalized even though there is a City of Toronto Lane Home By-law in place.
The Toronto fire department lit a fire under my butt and said I should get the building department to agree to a meeting to sort ‘access’ issues out. We made that meeting happen. Toronto Fire, Toronto Building and Planning Departments. I also invited Lanescape (a lane home company) and councilor Ana Bailao to send a representative. Note; Ana Bailao is also the deputy mayor as well as chair of the City’s Planning and Housing Committee.
Letting my clients know what was going on and asking them to email Ana Bailao and others to get things moving.
_______________________________________________
Hello [wonderful client names here],
Here is an update as to where I believe the lane policy is now regarding rear yard access for properties like yours and your neighbour’s, i.e., a potential or existing shared right-of-way, easements and or covenant on title.
I had a meeting Wednesday, March 13, 2019 at the City Hall that included City planning, the building department, Lanescape (a lane home company) as an interested party, chief of staff from councillor Bailao’s office and staff from councillor Layton’s office and Toronto fire who also represented EMS (Emergency Medical Services, a.k.a. Paramedics).
Further, I hired, at my expense, a professional presenter Chris Graham (TellPeople.ca) to help prepare me for the meeting as well as to chair the meeting. Chris has degrees in law, history, and business. I felt that I needed his expertise to ensure the points of the meeting were properly addressed by all participants present and that the focus was not on me but to establish clear ‘access’ guidelines and process acceptable to all departments
I believe the meeting addressed the main points of concern: (see meeting minutes below)
Current understanding: An unobstructed path of travel, 1 m wide measured to the property line and 2.1 m vertical clearance, must be provided for the firefighters’ access to the laneway house’s principal entrance. When the unobstructed access width is less than 1.0 m further evaluation may be required.
4. Criteria for right of way and easements on title.
Specific to point 4, a clear route of action was accepted. The actions will be headed up by Robert Cerjanec, Chief of Staff for Ana Bailao, and Graig Uens, City of Toronto Senior Planner. Please see attached minutes of the meeting from Wednesday, March 13, 2019, for more detail.
Essentially, City lawyers from Land Division must create and implement a language that can be added to existing rights of way, easements and covenants on title or new existing rights of way, easements and covenants on title as they would be applied to lane homes and detached rear dwelling structures.
As a followup to that meeting, I contacted a very experienced real estate lawyer with knowledge of provincial and municipal legal wording for right of way, easements and covenants on title. I also provided to that lawyer an existing precedent excerpt from the Ontario Building Code (OBC) 9.10.14.2. (4)(a) (i)(ii)(iii)(iv), 9.10.14.2.(4)(b) and 9.10.14.2.(5) – (See Excerpt below)
My intention was to provide a legal head start for City land division if required.
This very experienced lawyer advised me of his hourly rate along with his understanding that dealing with provincial and municipal legal wording can make it harder to pin down the number of hours that is required. I, therefore, took this to mean that the City is fully capable of drafting these new guidelines and legal requirements. Therefore even if I decided to afford this lawyer’s expertise, the result still might not be enough for the City land division legal.
On April 5, 2019, The attendees of the March 13 meeting received the comments I received from the lawyer as well as the OBC precedents for their information and use.
I decided not to afford this lawyer at this time as I believe this action should be the responsibility of the City. Subsequently, it is my sincere hope that Robert and Graig will engage City legal land division with all appropriate speed.
_______________________________
[wonderful client names here],
It would be extremely helpful if you would contact via email or telephone, councilors Gord Perks and Ana Bailao as well as Robert Cerjanec and Graig Uens to request that they move expeditiously on creating, approving and implementing legal ‘access’ wording to allow lane homes and detached rear dwelling structures.
In the meantime, we can still do preliminary design only but must wait until this action is fully enacted by the City of Toronto and attached to its lane home policy in order to be approvable under the OBC.
Sincerely,
Rohan
________________________________End of Letter
Meeting Minutes March 13, 2019
Location: City Hall, 16th floor, East Tower, Large Boardroom 10:05 to 11:07 a.m.
In Attendance:
Selva Panchanatham City of Toronto Building, [email removed here]
Doug Babcock City of Toronto, District Fire Chief,[email removed here]
Rohan Walters, Spaces By Rohan Inc., [email protected]
Chris Graham, Spaces By Rohan Inc., tellpeople.ca
George Pantazis City of Toronto, Planning,[email removed here]
Robert Cerjanec, Councillor Bailao’s Office,[email removed here]
Angela Surdi, Councillor Layton’s Office,[email removed here]
Craig Race Architect, Lanescape,[email removed here]
Tony Cunha Architect, Lanescape,[email removed here]
Andrew Sorbara, Lanescape,[email removed here]
Graig Uens, City of Toronto, Planning,[email removed here]
Presentation of First 3 Points:
Current understanding: An unobstructed path of travel, 1 m wide measured to the property line and 2.1 m vertical clearance, must be provided for the firefighters’ access to the laneway house’s principal entrance. When the unobstructed access width is less than 1.0 m further evaluation may be required.
Discussion Begins:
Selva – Yes, a handout draft has been submitted Toronto Fire this week to confirm that O.B.C. 9.10.20.3 Fire Department Access to Buildings will be a condition honoured with regard to access to the rear lane home access.
Doug – Soon, perhaps this week a draft memo to Toronto Building Department to be signed off by the [City of Toronto] Fire Chief regarding these minimum requirements as set out in the building code.
Doug – Further, A.O.D.A. [Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act] will apart of the verification process.
Doug Babcock – Quality Site plan will need to be provided showing fire hydrant location through to the entrance of the lane home [detached dwelling unit behind the rear main wall of the main home].
Selva – 0.9 meters will be a hard minimum measurement for the passage width. [minimum passage height was not discussed, 2.1 meters is the present standard]
Craig – When in the process is the compliance alternative going to be necessary?
Robert Cerjanec – Noting that many constituents are experiencing multiple re-submissions only to have the building department then apply, ‘access’ conditions
Robert Cerjanec – wants to ensure a basic process of evaluation for the lane home or detached rear yard dwelling is established because at this time such a process does not effectively exist.
Doug Babcock – [regarding potential process] For example: If you meet ‘x’ conditions then route #1 for approval. If you meet ‘y’ conditions then route #2 or approval. If there are ‘z’ conditions then route #3 for approval or no route to approval.
Presentation of Last Agenda Point:
• Criteria for right of way and easements on title.
Discussion Begins:
Selva – Easements and right of ways are hard to enforce for the moment.
Graig Uens – Registered easements are relatively common
Robert Cerjanec – Should there be standard easement language by the city?
Andrew Sorbara – Pointing out that city legal has not looked at the issue of shared easements, right of way, and covenants on title.
Doug – Points of concern are gates, fences and other border aspects when neighbours disagree.
Graig Uens – pointed out it may be possible to tie the city’s development agreement demands and language to the potential rear detached dwelling unit easement, right of ways and convents.
Graig Uens – Offered to work with MLS (Municipal Licensing), City legal (Brian and Rodney),
Rohan – asks, would the legal and planning people mind if ‘sample’ agreement-language be submitted to aid in the process?
Graig Uens – responding to Rohan, [regarding sample wording of acceptable easement, by-law, and covenants on title] “that’s okay”.
End of discussion on agenda items.
An extended discussion took place:
Craig, Tony, Rohan – ask, what will be the acceptable site documentation if the distance of fire hydrant is close to the 90 meters from the entrance of the rear lane home or detached dwelling unit? For instance property data maps or scaled merge of site drawing over google or areal photo?
Selva – the building department will rely on your [the architect’s or designers registration] “stamp” to verify distance from hydrants to the entry door of the detached dwelling unit at the rear of the main home.
Robert Cerjanec – With regard to the proposed Alternate Solutions process, will work to implement some form of preliminary review process where access can be reviewed and conditionally approved early in the approvals process, for minimal cost. This will hopefully result in a “clearance letter” or other official documentation being issued to the applicant. – Robert is hopeful that an initial meeting on this to be within 2 to 4 weeks.
Rob and Graig will prompt Legal to produce language regarding shared easements and oversee implementation with Building.
Meeting End … 11:07 a.m.
These meeting minutes were prepared in good faith. Please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned should you disagree with any of the above items.
Minutes submitted by Rohan Walters, of Spaces By Rohan Inc., [email protected]
_______________________END OF MINUTES
Hi all,
Regarding draft wording for rights of way, easements and covenants on title to access rear detached dwelling structures.
Comments from my real estate lawyer:
“Basically the party acquiring an interest in the laneway property will need access to get to the property – that access will have to be defined by way of reference plans and the owner of the Servient lands (where the access is) will be restricted in its use of the easement lands so as not to interfere with access to the Dominant lands (laneway property deriving the benefit)[a.k.a. detached rear dwelling unit] – you may even need to impose obligations on both parties with respect to the maintenance of the easement lands (cost-sharing obligations)
You also need to know that any grant of an interest in land in excess of 21 years will need consent under the planning act. The rights of way or easements to EMS and Toronto Fire likely do not need planning act approval. So the process with the City will also require their land division department to be involved.
I will need to get more information from you – as I think about it I realize in some instances you need the cooperation of your neighbour – I guess there could be situations where the lot is big enough that we don’t need the cooperation of the neighbour.”
“… are you expecting these laneway homes are going to be rental structures or are you thinking that the subdivider will be able to sell them to third parties?” [yes structures for rent are an option but NO subdivision]
“…Right now I don’t think you need to have the exact wording – you just need to refine the concept of how the access is to be provided.”
_________________________
My lawyer’s rate is upwards from $400/hr. and the amount of hours are uncertain due to the unclear nature of the format City legal, i.e. land divisions and OBC’s exact requirements. I will not afford this at this time.
I believe this legal wording and its timely implementation are the City’s responsibility. In other words, City legal – Land Divisions – with these above notes combined with the OBC precedent 9.10.14.2. (4)(a) (i)(ii)(iii)(iv), 9.10.14.2.(4)(b) and 9.10.14.2.(5) (see attached PDF) have enough to re-work acceptable legal wording to clearly define what will be acceptable ‘access’ requirements for detached rear dwelling structures and lane homes.
___________________________
Please, Robert Cerjanec and Graig Uens,
Could you comment and perhaps posit a timeline when land division – legal – can have acceptable wording in place?
Regards,
Rohan.
[note: I have not received a response yet and will keep this updated.]___________________________
Ontario Building Code (OBC) reference on how covenents are written into the OBC:
