A severance and minor variance application for a Mount Forest property are being considered anything but “minor” by the property’s neighbours on Wellington Street.
The application, which came before Wellington North council on Jan. 26, seeks relief from the township’s minimum frontage and interior side yard setbacks in order to create one residential lot. The property has received severance approval from the county subject to township approval.
The township bylaw requires a minimum frontage of 15 metres (the applicant wants 13.62m) and a minimum side yard of 3.7m (the applicant is seeking 3.07 metres).
Wellington Street resident Harry Engels told council he is opposed to the application because the new severed property would be noticeably smaller, with a frontage of 44 feet, compared to other homes on 60-foot lots.
“Aesthetically speaking, this is a narrow lot, a little over 36 feet. The depth is sufficient for a minimum square footage, but frontage is all we see,” Engels said. “The major variance to me is that now we’re getting a narrow lot stuck in a neighbourhood with nice wide lots and properties.”
Engels said the lot was not intended to be divided into two properties and he is concerned about the elevation being lower than surrounding lots if a new dwelling is constructed.
“The current appearance of this substantial elevation difference is acceptable considering the large property; however, a new lot with a house would have to comply with current elevations for proper drainage,” he said. “This would only accentuate the elevation difference further on the remaining lot, having the appearance of a house in a hole. This will not be good for surrounding property esthetics and values.”
Wellington County junior planner Jameson Pickard said he didn’t see any issues with accommodating proper drainage on the site and noted the lot size is relatively standard compared to what is seen in more modern subdivisions.
“The [Wellington Street] lots were likely created at a time when you needed a larger land base to accommodate services. These considerations weren’t around at the time when these lots were created so I understand they’re larger.”
Engels wondered if approval of the variance would set a precedent in the community.
“Is the purpose of the Planning Act to allow people to sever wide lots so they can make some extra money?” he asked. “That’s fine if it doesn’t adversely affect other neighbours around, but to me this is going to look bad.”
Because Wellington North is primarily zoned agricultural, Pickard explained growth must be concentrated in the urban areas of Arthur and Mount Forest, making these types of severances relatively unavoidable.
“The intention behind the provincial policy is to maximize [township] land, services and infrastructure so efficient growth can happen,” Pickard said. “It’s placed upon us by the province to conform to these requirements and direct growth to these serviced urban centres so we can maximize infrastructure.”
Engels also provided council with a petition signed by 10 nearby residents who oppose the severance.
Planning consultant Bruce Fulcher representing Jason Oakes in Mount Forest attended the meeting to answer any questions regarding development of the property. He noted two neighbours directly across the street from the lot did not sign the petition.
“From an aesthetic perspective, you’d think they would be the most affected,” he said.
Fulcher noted the lot size is found in other areas of Mount Forest, with properties on Wellington Street ranging in size. He added the street does not typically see any issues with drainage.
“Mount Forest has 35-foot lots, 50-foot lots and on that area of the street, lots ranging from 50 feet to 120 feet … I think a 36-foot allowance is more than adequate for houses in this day and age. There are plenty of houses in this town with smaller widths including a garage,” he said.
The county has approved the plan with wastewater and drainage conditions met and bylaw variances accommodated.
Councillor Dan Yake suggested the application be deferred for further discussion.
“There are obviously concerns from most of the neighbours. In most cases where we’ve had to deal with this type of thing, we’ve asked the applicant and the opponents to see if they can come up with some sort of solution,” he said.
“I think there may or may not be a solution here, but we should give them the opportunity to work this out.”
