Neighbours at odds over home expansion
Bylaw designed to preserve Westdale’s character is being ignored, some feel
Westdale has a monster home problem that proves big is in the eye of the beholder.
Any day now, the Ontario Municipal Board will rule on a dispute between Bond Street North neighbours over plans to expand a tiny postwar brick bungalow into a 1,950-square-foot, two-storey home.
David Peng said he wants to add a back addition and second storey to his 700-square-foot home to make room for a growing family. Peng, his wife and four kids, aged six months to 15 years, are currently squeezed into an apartment-sized space. “It’s not for students, not renters … We just need more room,” he said.
Neighbour Brian Henry says he’s fine with an addition — he added a second storey to his own tiny house five years ago, after all. But he argues the size and “volume” of Peng’s proposed building is literally over the top, and will loom over unhappy neighbours. “Tripling the size of your house, any
way you look at it, is quite big,” he said.
Lots of neighbours bicker over home expansions — but not all of them live in Westdale or Ainslie Wood, which alone among city neighbourhoods are governed by a socalled “monster home” bylaw.
The bylaw was enacted in 1996 to protect the character of the area’s unique landscape of cheek-by-jowl brick homes — and to prevent landlords from cramming university students into warehouse-sized buildings.
The amalgamated city has a patchwork of differing limits on residential home sizes.
But the monster home bylaw is unique because it specifically limits the floor area of any home — including the basement — to no more than 45 per cent of the lot size. Given the typically small size of lots in Westdale, this rule technically outlaws most building additions — let alone “monster” homes.
You might then wonder: Why do a dozen or more homes in Peng’s neighbourhood have a full or partial second storey?
Because homeowners can apply for a bylaw variance (read: exception to the rule) from the city’s committee of adjustment, an arm’s-length, non-political body meant to deal with minor developments.
The committee granted such a variance to both Henry and Peng — despite official opposition in both cases from city planners, who pointed to the bylaw.
Henry said he appealed Peng’s proposal because he felt the committee ignored the intent of the monster home bylaw — and the opposition of neighbours. “There needs to be proof that there are more neighbours in favour than opposed,” Henry said, noting he submitted a list of supportive neighbours along with his application for a variance.
Peng and his architects say neighbours they approached sounded supportive initially, but some later opposed his application at the committee of adjustment hearing.
They also note the amount of lot coverage for the proposed new home is virtually identical to that of Henry’s house (both well exceed the monster home bylaw limits). Henry argues the relevant difference is the “volume” of the proposed home, which will feature a longer, higher back addition as well as a large deck.
It’s the kind of debate that might seem surreal in densely built Durand, where residents are more used to battling neighbours with 20plus-storey tower proposals. That neighbourhood is asking for a special zoning regimen to protect its residential character.
Some Ancaster residents also recently complained about monster homes popping up beside bungalows. One of those alleged monsters weighed in at closer to 4,000 square feet.
The average new home size in Canada today is around 1,950 square feet — or almost exactly that proposed by Peng.
But big is in the eye of the beholder — especially in a neighbourhood where homeowners already rub elbows. City planning guidelines also generally encourage new developments to maintain neighbourhood character and similar levels of density.
Philip Toms, one of the architects hired to design Peng’s home, argues the proposal is in keeping with the character of an “evolving” neighbourhood that needs room for families.
Toms said an OMB decision in favour of enforcing the “ham-fisted” bylaw would prevent needed intensification in Hamilton and renewal of aging housing stock in Westdale.
“I think this bylaw is starting to get in the way,” he said, noting other intensification projects are afoot — and likely up for debate — in the neighbourhood. “The houses are so small, and the lots are so small, that almost anything you do to change your home rubs up against this bylaw.”
Henry, on the other hand, says he is hoping the OMB will resurrect a valuable bylaw that has been “neutered” by constant exceptions granted by local officials.
Ward Coun. Aidan Johnson said he doesn’t plan to pursue a change to the bylaw, arguing the committee of adjustment exists to grant or deny exceptions “where appropriate.”
The city may eventually revisit or revise the bylaw under a comprehensive review of residential zoning meant to deal with a patchwork of preamalgamation rules.
But that long-term project is only kicking off this year.