Mapleton bylaws are barriers to building affordable housing: developer

MAPLETON – It’s not looking likely that 16 townhouses will be built in Drayton as planned. 

Sabato Homes came to Mapleton Township with three minor variance requests to build the units they said could sell for less than $600,000 each. 

But township planners are against the application, so the developer offered a modified version, with 14 units instead.  

Mapleton’s committee of adjustment was given hard copies of the updated request during an April 15 meeting, and unanimously decided to defer its decision to give township staff time to review the changes.

Initially, developers requested variances to allow four extra units and reduced frontage and lot sizes for each unit.

Zoning on the vacant 5,000m² lot on Maple Street allows for townhouses, but no more than six units per row with minimum lot sizes of 232m² and lot frontages of at least 6.5m. 

Sabato Homes was initially looking to build two rows of eight townhouses on 181m² lots with 5.5m frontage. 

Mapleton planning staff recommended the township’s committee of adjustment reject the variance applications and suggested the developers build 14 townhouses instead. 

Minor variances must be minor in nature, desirable for the use of the land and in keeping with the general intent of the township’s zoning bylaw and the county’s official plan.

MHBC planner Pierre Chauvin, representing Sabato Homes, said in his opinion, the application meets all of the above.  

Township planning staff say the request is not minor in nature because “while each variance may appear modest on its own, their cumulative effect is significant. Together, they enable a form of development that substantially increases the density and intensity of use on the site.” 

The proposed density of townhouses is “not compatible with the existing character of the neighbourhood,” planners stated in a report. 

“The surrounding area is characterized by lower-density residential uses, and the proposed development would introduce a level of massing and intensity that is out of scale.” 

Staff also listed concerns about traffic, parking and space for snow storage and removal. 

“These impacts collectively indicate that the proposal represents overdevelopment and is not desirable for the appropriate development of the land,” planners stated. 

Approving the requested variances “would undermine the integrity of the township’s zoning bylaw,” they continued, and “set an undesirable precedent for similar applications.” 

“This type of growth should be managed carefully so that new development fits with existing communities, respects their character, and occurs in a planned and coordinated way” according to Wellington County’s official plan, township planners stated. “This proposal does not maintain the general intent and purpose of the official plan.”

Neighbours Rob and Emily Curry wrote to the township to express similar concerns, specifically about traffic, parking, snow removal, garbage pick up, turnaround space for emergency vehicles, run off and drainage. 

They said as parents of three young children, they are particularly worried about increased traffic, which they see as “a large risk to the community.” 

Chauvin said the developer’s modified proposal provides “a lot more buffer” between the development and the Currys’ property.

It also means the frontage for six of the 14 units would provide the minimum frontage, and more space for parking, including two spots in each unit’s driveway. 

The six larger units would have lot sizes of 215m² instead of 181m2. That’s 17m² less than the minimum specified in the zoning bylaw.  

With six units per row instead of eight, the units would sell for almost $700,000 each, Chauvin said, adding, “We are willing to accept this ... compromise  in order to see some level of affordability come to the community.” 

Mapleton planner Michelle McCabe said she has no concerns with the updated application for the six-unit townhouse rows, but her opinion stays the same for the eight-unit row: “the cumulative impact of all the requests altogether make it not a minor variance.” 

Committee member Robert Stammers said he’d like to see both rows of townhouses go down to six units, and he was willing to approve that during the meeting. Without that change, Stanners said he’d want to defer the decision. 

Chauvin said a deferral would be fine, but “this is the proposal we want to proceed with.”    

“In my view this is appropriate scale and density: a low-rise, residential type of form no different than what you see just up the road at 19 Andrews St., where there is an existing nine-unit townhouse development … it’s not out of character with this community,” said Chauvin.

He added the township’s 50-foot minimum for property width is “unheard of” and called Mapleton’s zoning bylaw out of date. 

“I respectfully disagree,” McCabe said. “We do have zoning bylaw that does allow a mix of uses, densities and housing types.”   

If the township “is serious about protecting farmland, then you want to see more intensification,” Chauvin said. 

“If you want to see your children or grandparents stay within this community, they have no where to go, and this is really what we are trying to provide,” he said. 

McCabe said high-density development isn’t possible in Mapleton
the way it is in cities, because Mapleton doesn’t have the same services such as public transit, which means most households have more than one car. 

“If we start allowing these really intense developments without facilities and infrastructure to go along with it we are going to be in a lot of trouble,” she said. 

“We want to ensure they can accommodate all the needs that go with that household.” 

Sabato Homes president Alain Mbanjabahizi said he moved to Drayton because he “fell in love with the town.” 

It’s not the first development he’s built here, and he said interested buyers, especially young families, often ask if he will build smaller, more affordable homes. 

“That’s where my heart is, because I know how hard it was for me to get my first house,” Mbanjabahizi said. “We’re trying to see how we can help the community.” 

But if the company needs to build bigger townhouses than they planned, the cost to build each will go up, and they won’t be as affordable, he said. 

The township’s committee of adjustment is set to reconsider the application during its May 13 meeting.