Councillors here are hoping a good neighbourly approach can solve issues between residents over a minor variance proposed for an Arthur property.
What came to council as a minor variance ended up in a not-so-minor discussion of lot lines and property setbacks.
Applicants Wayne Edward O’Neill and Darlene Alice Craig of 229 Tucker Street, made an application for a property which is occupied by one half of a semi-detached dwelling.
The application is to provide relief from the required lot frontage and interior side yard setback. The proposal received provisional approval earlier this year from the county land division committee.
However, resident Ethel McEwen, who owns and adjacent property, objected more to the process than the severance itself. She objects to the proposed minor variance for a number of reason.
She has concerns over the reduction to property frontage or the implications that could mean to sideyards. McEwen believes if the frontage requirements remained unchanged, there would be no need to alter side yards.
Planner Linda Redmond said the planning department has no concerns with the application since it would maintain the intent of the official plan and zoning bylaw.
She explained that under the rezoning, the land requires 15 metres of frontage while the severed lot had 13.7 metres.
The retained parcel would still have a frontage of 9 metres.
Stan Winegard,?who read a letter on McEwan’s behalf, stated there is 12 feet on the southerly side of the residence to the proposed severance.
McEwen believes the applicant should be able to develop the property without asking for a minor variance, which she thinks could adversely affect the value and enjoyment of her property.
Redmond explained the applicant is not asking for a reduction in the sideyards. The 12.1 feet is required under the zoning bylaw, she said.
Applicant Wayne Edward O’Neill said, “This would be an opportunity to have a good little house on this lot,” he said.
O’Neill said the idea was to use measurements from the existing semi-detached building, but to provide the 12 feet if they ever needed to have access to their backyard.
He thought the approach would allow development of a 45 foot lot and work out for the neighbours in general.
Redmond added that there is an issue of altering the property lines now, in that the severance had already been given conditional approval.
Any change would need to be sent back for further discussion, she said.
“My concern is that the 12 feet are required for parking space. I would want to ensure that adequate parking is still available.”
Councillor Ross Chaulk said that even if it has to go back to land division to make everyone happy, “then maybe that’s what we should do.”
“It seems like a no brainer … even if it takes a little longer.”
He would rather see that than one of neighbour against neighbour. “As an accountant, if it requires a little number crunching … it’s not a big deal,” Chaulk said.
Councillor Dan Yake agreed, and said McEwen had a couple of good points. “I’d like to see it resolved so both parties are happy.”
He said in many of these cases it comes to council to try to solve them, whereas sometimes it can be achieved with some discussion between the neighbours.
“Personally, if it’s a matter of four feet … maybe they can meet in the middle.”
Councillor John Matusinec asked if it the issued goes back to the land division committee would it cost more.
Redmond said it would not.
O’Neill suggested if McEwen sees the designs of the houses that could be placed there today, she would have no issue.
He also believed a house could be accommodated quite easily. O’Neill said, the issue is people are used to large sideyards and cannot see how much room will still be there.
Yake suggested O’Neill should have a discussion with McEwen so that she can make a decision.
“I’m not trying to step on anyone’s toes,” O’Neill reiterated.
Redmond asked O’Neill if he has a plan in mind for the new home.
Her reasoning is that different types of homes have different setback requirements.
O’Neill said a local builder had showed interest and had built a similar home on Duke Street, in Arthur.
In that instance, it was also a home on a narrow lot – and it included a garage.
“It was just a little bungalow,” he said.
Redmond said given that type of plan, the minimum sideyard is 3.9 feet on both sides.
Winegard questioned if there is a guarantee that would be the type of home built.
Redmond said if the home was more than one storey, the sideyard requirement shifts to 5.9 on both sides.
Further, she explained, if there is no garage, one sideyard must provide 12.1 feet for parking.
“The bottom line is that the closest it would be is 3.9 feet.”
McEwen asked that once the variance passes, if a further variance could be requested.
Redmond said everyone is entitled to make that request, but that does not mean council would pass it.
O’Neill said that even at 3.9 feet “it’s not like there would be only four feet between the houses.”
He said there would still be the four feet from the house to the property line for both houses, so there would still actually be nine feet between the homes.
“It’s not like you wouldn’t be able to get your lawnmower through there anymore.”
Broomhead said, “It sounds to me as if there are a few issues, but at the end of the day I think we can resolve it. We know that some day a house is going to go in there … that’s a given.”
He said if council passed this as is and an appeal came in, “Then we’d just be going straight back to square one.”
Broomhead said legal advice may be needed to deal with questions regarding easements.
“We’d like to see discussion among the neighbours to see if there is some middle ground.”
O’Neill said there is no better neighbour than McEwen, and if he had known there were issues, he would have talked to her about them.
“I don’t want to step on her toes. She’s been a great neighbour and she’s been there forever.”
