BRUCEDALE – Residents of a Rockwood subdivision are concerned a zoning bylaw amendment aimed at addressing a previous oversight could mean trouble for those of them who have widened their driveways.
At a May 6 public meeting to discuss the proposed amendment, Guelph/Eramosa Mayor Chris White called the issue “a bit of a paperwork exercise.”
But it was clear some residents of the Noble Ridge subdivision off of Harris Street were concerned about implications the bylaw amendment might have for work they have already completed on their properties.
Resident Steven Khan, who spoke at the meeting, said many driveways in the neighbourhood have been edged with decorative stone or other material that he called “driveable,” but he stressed the intention is not to create more parking.
“The purpose is to beautify the community,” he said. “It’s not to park six cars on the driveway.”
The site-specific bylaw amendment being proposed by the township is intended to address the fact that when the homes were built, their driveways were in contravention of the township’s zoning bylaw even though they were initially approved by the township when building permits were issued.
“Currently the as-approved driveways exceed the maximum allowable driveway width” under the township’s zoning bylaw, reads a township planning report.
The bylaw states a driveway may be no greater than 50 per cent of the width of the lot or 7.5 metres, whichever is less. But with detached homes with two-car garages on 36-foot (11m) lots, the development features wider driveways.
The proposed amendment allows driveways to be equal to the width of the garage to a maximum width of 6.5 metres.
White called it an “oversight” that the driveways were allowed to be constructed to specifications that didn’t meet the bylaw without an amendment. He said the proposed amendment was meant to match the bylaw to the reality on the ground.
“It’s not our intention to run out and rip out your little strip of gravel,” he told the resident.
But another neighbourhood resident, James Clark, also expressed concern the amendment wouldn’t be sufficient because of alterations made to driveways since they were built.
“I am one of those guys that has widened the driveway to park three vehicles,” Clark said, noting he did the work in 2015.
He said he had talked to neighbours and none expressed any objections to his widened driveway.
But White told him he might have an issue, depending on how much it had been widened.
“The bylaw has some flexibility, but it has to be applied to everybody fairly,” White said.
Attending the meeting virtually, a third neighbour spoke negatively about the effects of widened driveways.
Saying he walks his dog throughout the neighbourhood, Oswaldo Ramos called it a “problem” that widened driveways have meant more cars parked out front.
“You have extended the driveway, and now you have, just in (front of) one of the houses, six cars,” Ramos said.
He said the neighbourhood reminds him of Brampton, where he used to live.
“That’s what those people there were doing,” he said. “All of a sudden, you have detached houses with no grass in the front. It’s just a whole full parking lot.”
While White noted the amendment isn’t intended to deal with specific driveways that have been widened beyond their original dimensions, he said the township recognizes it’s a “growing problem.”
But he also emphasized bylaws are enforced on a complaints basis, and the process can drag on for years if it reaches the courts.
“Until we’ve got a conviction, we can’t force somebody to do something,” White said.
He suggested people contact the township’s planning department with questions or concerns about individual properties.
People have until May 10 to provide written submissions on the proposed bylaw amendment before council makes its decision.
