OPPOSITION IN WRITING
Anonymous letter arguing against proposed accessory apartments being circulated in Charlottetown
Anonymous letter arguing against proposed accessory apartments being circulated in Charlottetown
An anonymous letter arguing against proposed accessory apartments is making the rounds in Charlottetown.
The Guardian recently obtained a copy of this letter.
Having accessory apartments is one of the proposed amendments to the city’s zoning and development bylaw.
It would allow people who have residential homes to have any accessory apartment, as-of-right, in their basement, up to 800 square feet, with a maximum of two bedrooms.
The person circulating the letter doesn’t identify himself or herself, signing the letter only as “a concerned citizen’’.
A source told The Guardian that the person circulating the letter is a member of the city’s planning board. This is one of the city’s many advisory boards whose mandate is to examine an issue and recommend a vote to council. Council then has the choice to follow the recommendation or not.
“This could mean full basement apartments and any tenants will be acceptable,’’ the letter reads. “This is the city’s way of dealing with the current housing shortage. By passing this bylaw to allow our already established neighbourhoods to house basement apartments instead of having contractors build affordable housing, to code, in new subdivisions that are zoned for such apartments.
“This will mean major, unstoppable changes in our residential neighbourhoods, including more people, increased traffic and parking problems, safety issues, and potentially serious negative consequences for our property values and the character of our neighbourhoods,’’ the letter goes on to say.
The deadline for public input on this issue was Monday at noon.
Coun. Greg Rivard, chairman of the planning and heritage committees, said residents are permitted to comment on any proposed amendment to the zoning and development bylaw as part of the public consultation phase.
“If it is a committee member (circulating the letter), the individual would need to declare conflict and remove themselves from the vote when the application is reviewed,’’ Rivard said.
The councillor added that there seems to be some misconception and negativity around the proposed amendments. He said any single detached dwelling or twounit dwelling in the R1L, R1S, R2, R2S or R3 zone can add an inlaw suite, which is an accessory apartment intended for an immediate family member. The unit is restricted in size according to the requirements established in the National Building Code, and an additional parking space is required on the property.
“The only change currently proposed (with accessory apartments) is that the city will no longer regulate who can live in the unit,’’ Rivard said. “The current narrow definition of an immediate family member has been determined to be discriminatory in other jurisdictions and struck down.’’
Rivard added that this proposed amendment won’t derail the whole zoning and development review.
“If council chooses to remove this (accessory apartments) amendment for whatever reason, they can absolutely make the motion. This is only a small part of the whole bylaw review so, no, if council chooses to remove this amendment until it can be reviewed further, the other proposed changes made to the bylaw can still be approved.’’