MAPLETON – The owner of a vacant lot in Moorefield had hopes of constructing a four-plex at 13 Adam Brown Street.
The current zoning of the 467-square-metre lot is single family residential.
The owners applied to change the zoning and reduce the minimum frontage, lot area, lot coverage and parking requirements.
The application was unanimously declined by the mayor and councillors following a public meeting on Feb. 11.
The owner and applicant were not able to attend the public meeting “due to unforeseen circumstances” and had requested a deferral, Mapleton planner Michelle Brown noted.
Council denied that deferral because there were people present in the audience waiting to speak about the application.
Brown noted not deferring meant everyone would miss out on the opportunity for the applicant to respond immediately, but that questions and concerns would be communicated with the applicant after the meeting.
Four nearby neighbours provided statements in opposition to the application, expressing concerns about parking, traffic, drainage, snow removal, property values, garbage, lighting, privacy, noise, setting a precedent for future development and maintaining the neighbourhood’s aesthetics.
Brown said township staff have similar concerns, especially with regards to parking.
The application only included two parking spaces, inside the garage, she noted. “So unless there was some sort of workaround (for parking) we also share that concern.”
Councillor Amanda Reid also expressed concerns about parking, noting “you can’t expect that four spaces would ever be accommodated in this lot, so to think that a four-plex could even go in here seems unreasonable to me.
Owners of a vacant lot on Adam Brown Street in Moorefield were hoping to build a four-unit residential building, but their application was denied by council. Images from Mapleton council agenda
“I wouldn’t support the quad-living there at all – a duplex, maybe, but it really would depend on making sure that we can still fit all those requirements – for bylaw, for parking – because if we just are going to cause an issue with parking on the road it’s going to cause other bylaw issues as well,” Reid said.
Brown noted Mapleton staff are open to the idea of a two-unit duplex, as “there is a lot more leeway that way, and you can provide enough parking.”
But council ruled out the chance of a duplex by including in its recommendation that the zoning of the lot not be changed from RC1, meaning only a single residential unit be allowed.
The recorded reason for denying the application is that it didn’t meet requirements for minimum frontage, lot coverage, parking or general grading design.
It was councillor Michael Martin who suggested the lot’s zoning remain unchanged, noting “anything outside of that, I’m not particularly interested in, so it might be an exercise in futility to have the applicant keep coming back with different R2 zoning applications” for multi-unit residences.
“Everyone wants growth,” Martin said, “but it’s not uncontrolled growth, right? It needs to be measured growth. Where we want it, and how it’s appropriate for the community.”
He described Adam Brown Street as so narrow it’s “barely a street – it’s almost a lane.”
“It’s part of OG Moorefield. It’s small. It’s not your typical suburban street that you might imagine in a subdivision or something … the neighbourhood clearly expects some sort of development at some point but I think it needs to be appropriate for the neighbourhood.”
“We are bound for growth and it is in the Moorefield build boundary,” noted councillor Lori Woodham, “and I believe wholeheartedly that we should be concentrating on building up, not out.
“But when you drive down Adam Street and look at that lot … I can’t see how four cars could [fit], I can’t see how you’d have access to the sides .. and the lawn.”
Neighbour Garth Noecker said while he and his wife, who live immediately next door to the subject property, are “certainly opposed” to the four-plex application, they are not opposed to a single residential unit being built on the lot.
He said the application reflects provincial asks for intensification, claiming: “As usual, Queen’s Park thinks they have a problem so they give it to the municipalities and say ‘well here, you solve it.’
“Solving it in my backyard is just not the greatest,” he said. “The municipality does have a responsibility to look out for the interests of the other residents in the immediate area.”
Neighbour David Marshall submitted written concerns about the application, stating “this is a single family home neighbourhood with modest-sized lots with very small front yards typically.
“I don’t see how going from an R1C (single family) zoning to R2 (four units) and reducing minimum frontage is in the best interest of our community. It certainly is not in the best interests of any of the surrounding neighbours,” Marshall stated.
Neighbours Jeremy and Karen Moore also submitted written concerns.
“What was once a quiet residential street will become a parking lot with a lot of angry neighbours,” they stated.
“Our current neighbourhood is filled with single residential homes and we would like to preserve the character and appearance of our neighbourhood.”
“This development will compromise the quality of life for the neighbouhood and local community,” they stated.
Neighbours Michelle and John Faber submitted a statement describing how the proposed development would have a “huge impact” on their day-to-day life.
“The increase in traffic will be a problem for all of us … This is a quiet neighbourhood and we would like it to remain that way.
“This is a lot zoned single family residential – please leave it that way.”
