Four townhouse units approved by council

ARTHUR – There will be more geared-to-seniors housing in Arthur with the development of a four-unit bungalow townhouse at 131 Edward St. 

Wellington North council approved five minor variances for the development on June 1. 

The variances permit the following to be smaller than the township’s bylaw allows: 

– lot area of 1,225m² (13,181ft²) instead of 1,383.5 m² (15,000ft²); 

– lot frontage of 19m (61ft) instead of 20.1m (66ft); 

– interior side yard setback of 3.7m (12.13ft) instead of 6m (19.7ft); and

– rear yard set back of 5m (16.4ft) instead of 7.6m (24.9ft). 

The lot, which is about a third of an acre (1,225m2), is beside the municipal parking lot behind the Arthur Post Office and is zoned high-density residential with a holding provision.  

Developers initially intended to include six parking spots closer to the front lot line, but shifted the parking and building back, which allows room for trees, landscaping and snow storage but means the rear yard setback had to be reduced. 

Township planner Jamie Barnes told council the change will “make the front of the property look nicer along the street.” 

Moving the parking area also necessitated the fifth minor variance, which will allow parking to be in front of the front wall of the main building, closer to the road (not allowed in the bylaw).

Developers proposed installing board privacy fencing along the side yard, between the development and the neighbouring residential property. 

“The proposed setbacks appear sufficient to provide room for drainage and separation between uses. The proposed units can be reasonably accommodated,” planners stated in a report to council, which recommended including a condition for a solid wood board privacy fence to be built along the interior side yard.

During the meeting Barnes noted township engineers suggested a chain link fence along the side yard adjacent to the township parking lot at 154 Edward St., and planning staff also recommend this be included as a condition.

Township planners have no concerns with the proposed variances to the lot area, lot frontage and interior side yard, and consider them to be minor in nature. But councillor Sherry Burke disagreed.

“I’m not sure that I believe or feel myself that some of the requests are minor in nature when we’ve got several items that are requesting differences in the areas that are a part of our bylaws,” she said. 

“From my perspective, we have bylaws for a reason” and “it would be really nice” if developers would try to build to suit the lot instead of requesting variances.

Tracey Swift lives in the home beside the future parking area, and told council she’s in support of the development, noting, “It’s seniors housing – something that our community greatly needs.”

But there are some things she wants developers and council to consider: 

– for the proposed privacy fence not to extend past her porch, to ensure maximum visibility when backing out of the driveway; 

– for an opportunity to discuss the fence design with developers; 

– to ensure construction does not undermine their garage foundation; and

– for sound storm water management to be provided, with water directed away from their backyard, so as not to add to existing pooling. 

During the meeting, a developer representative assured Swift the construction would not undermine the garage foundation and that they’d work with her on the fence design. 

And Barnes said, “A lot grading plan will be required with the building permit to deal with the storm water ...  [and] get it out to Edward Street.” 

According to development architect John Vanderwoerd, each unit will be 935ft² with two bedrooms, open-concept layouts and a 90ft storage area with an overhead door for mobility scooters and garbage and recycling bins. 

“There is already significant interest in this project, with a waiting list of nine potential tenants,” Vanderwoerd wrote in a letter to council. 

In terms of the requested variances, he said: “The lot width and lot area variances, we can’t do much about, since they are existing. 

“We require the left side yard setback in order to get efficient usage of the floor plans. We have minimized the width as much as possible. 

“The rear yard setback is necessary, since we aren’t allowed parking in the required front yard setback. The rear yard does face a commercial zoning, and therefore would be preferable from a standpoint of moving the building forward and asking for a variance for parking within the required front yard setback. This makes the front yard setback quite generous, which will allow for two new shade trees to be planted, while also retaining the three approximately six feet caliper trees.”  

Council approved the minor variances, with additional clauses for fencing. Burke was the only councillor to oppose the variances.