Councillors here have no issues with allowing a temporary second dwelling on a property near Palmerston.
A public meeting was held Oct. 6 to consider an amendment to the town’s zoning bylaw to allow a second residential unit – specifically a mobile home – for a temporary period of time.
Of the correspondence, one letter was from an adjacent neighbour who was looking for clarification on the issue.
Issues included how it would affect adjacent properties, the definition of temporary use, whether the property would meet current environmental standards, water and sewage requirements, and if the property meets the requirements for severance.
The property at 5912 County Road 123.
In his report to council, senior planner Mark Van Patter stated, “We have no concerns with the request for a garden suite, using a mobile home … provided it meets the requirements of the Building Code and remaining regulations of the zoning bylaw, including those specific to garden suites.
Van Patter explained the property is just west of Palmerston at the corner of County Road 123 and Highway 89.
He added the current building is set back almost 600 feet from County Road 123.
What is proposed is a garden suite, which would be approved only as a temporary use, Van Patter said.
He said that while the Wellington County official plan has the property designated as prime agricultural, it does provide for the use of garden suites “as long as there is adequate water and sewage services and established near the farm dwellings.”
Van Patter said traditionally such sites are permitted for up to 10 years.
The current zoning of the property is unserviced residential agriculture.
Van Patter added there are a number of regulations regarding the use of garden suites.
He said almost all of those regulations are met with the current proposal and clarified that garden suites are permitted in most areas of the town.
The only regulation that is not met is that the garden suite is to be a mobile home. Typically, mobiles homes for that use are only allowed in straight agricultural zones.
But, in terms of planning considerations, that was the main issue, and if council was ready to permit the mobile home for that use in this particular instance.
“In my mind, I think it is probably okay in that all the other regulations are met.”
Van Patter added that for the most part, the property itself is in an agricultural area and fairly well set back from the road.
In terms of duration, the Planning Act limits the time of use to 10 years, although applicants can apply for extensions via new rezonings three years at a time.
Van Patter said that the applicants, Gerald and Georgina Reid, were requesting only five years, but he allowed for 10 years in the draft bylaw to allow for extra flexibility.
“Sometimes five years goes by fairly quickly, and it would save another rezoning.”
One other item included a development agreement for council to consider, Van Patter said.
“It’s not required under the Planning Act,” he said. “But we generally recommend it because it sets out the responsibilities of the landowner and makes it clear that the garden suite must be removed after the 10 year period is up.”
In terms of the resident’s concerns, he believes most were a matter of getting information.
He doubted the temporary rezoning would affect neighbouring properties.
Whether or not the property could support an additional dwelling would be determined at the time of a building permit application to bring the mobile home on site.
As for potential for future severances, Van Patter expressed doubts simply because the property is designated as prime agricultural.
Council later approved the proposed temporary use bylaw for the garden suite.
