A proposed rezoning would address illegal apartments on a Fergus property, but would not tackle whether or not one of the buildings encroaches onto a neighbour’s property.
On Feb. 21, Centre Wellington council held a public meeting to rezone a multi-unit dwelling at 220-230 St. David Street South in Fergus.
The rezoning would allow redevelopment of the property to include a total of seven residential units.
Township planner Mariana Iglesias explained the property, designated as residential, is within the heritage area and is listed on the township’s heritage register.
The property includes two residential structures: a two-storey circa 1865 brick dwelling and a detached former coach house.
Prior to the current owner’s purchase of the property, there were eight residential units within the house and two within the coachhouse.
The eight units within the house were not legally recognized – and the new owner worked with staff to determine that fire code regulations could be met.
Iglesias stated the revised number would only include five residential units in the main building and two in the coach house. The rezoning would also recognize existing property deficiencies, including a rear yard setback of zero metres for the existing coach house.
“Otherwise the site will remain relatively unchanged,” said Iglesias, adding the site has adequate space for both amenities and parking for both residents and visitors.
Jeff Buisman of Van Harten Surveying, represented the property owner in his presentation. He said the proposal includes 11 parking spots and, “There are no plans to change the heritage façades.”
Councillor Fred Morris asked why a zone change was needed if the number of residential units was dropping.
Buisman stated the current zoning only allows for two residential units. The rezoning would allow seven.
“It was not legal before,” Buisman clarified. “We want to make it legal in zoning.”
Robert Wilson of 250 St. David Street South (an adjoining property), said surveys from the 1970s and 1980s suggest the neighbouring building encroaches onto his property.
“I in no way want to hinder the work being done, but I would like a resolution to the encroachment,” said Wilson, adding an encroachment could potentially affect the sale of his own property.
Councillor Morris asked for clarification the property line and “is there any way for us to help resolve this?”
Planner Brett Salmon said the latest survey he saw indicates the coach house is right on the property line.
“However, resolving that issue is between the two property owners. We cannot magically make the change at a staff level,” said Salmon, adding if a lot line adjustment is required, then the municipality can get involved.
Buisman said he thinks there was a mistake in previous surveys that indicated the property line was beneath the coach house.
“Whether or not it encroaches is a matter which needs to be settled amongst the two (property) owners,” noted Buisman.
However if a lot line adjustment is needed, “at the end of the day, my goal is to make sure both parties are happy … and that it is a fair representation of where the boundary is.”
Salmon pointed out there is nothing within the zoning bylaw to recognize or resolve a property encroachment.
Morris asked, “If there is an encroachment, should that not be rectified before any rezoning takes place?”
Salmon said, “Unfortunately the province has not blessed us with the ability to create conditional rezoning.”
Another adjacent property owner suggested the best use of the heritage property would be as a single family home, rather a than high-density residential building.
Councillor Mary Lloyd noted in the past, parking on the property was “somewhat askew or astray.”
Iglesias said the site plan indicates delineated parking.
Councillor Stephen Kitras agreed the encroachment is separate from the rezoning, but still felt it should be resolved before any permanent construction occurs.
Kitras said he realizes there were illegal apartments beforehand, but he believed if something is not done now, there could be problems.
Councillor Steven VanLeeuwen advised caution before connecting the zoning with the property line issue.
He also suggested Fergus “has so many encroachment issues, I’m not sure we could move forward on anything in the downtown core.”
