As someone who sits on a…

As someone who sits on a municipal committee of adjustment, I am opposed to "as-of-right" variations from setback requirements. I have seen too many cases where a small variation, less than 10%, was not justified, and, if automatically approved, would unfairly impact neighbouring properties and/or the whole neighbourhood.

Example: a citizen adds a rear entrance to their home, to create an as-of-right additional dwelling unit, and to shield the inhabitants of the ADU, creates an overhanging roof which sheds rain, snow and ice on their neighbour's walkway, precipitation which endangers the health and safety of not only the neighbours but all visitors and delivery people who must come to the neighbour's front door.

An automatic 10% deviation from setback requirements would legitimize this dangerous situation.

(Of course, in the best of all possible worlds, the citizen would have consulted with their neighbour before building the dripping roof. An alternate solution would have been developed, and there would have been no request to the Committee of Adjustment. But in this case, thankfully there was a route for the neighbour to get their health and safety concerns rectified.)

It may seem picayune and petty to "worry" about such a small variation as 10%.

But imagine you are the person who is forced to live with icy sidewalks because your neighbour "as of right" built a structure perilously close to the lot line. And you have no recourse to request them to change this, thanks to Bill 17 and this proposed regulation.

Please don't make us go down this road.
Allow us to continue approving -- or not approving -- small exceptions when circumstances require them.

The ability to particularize rules to the specific circumstances is what makes our municipalities vibrant.