Re: 012-9694…

 Re: 012-9694

  1. Reducing parking requirement is sensible. No one should be forced to provide two or more parking spaces where the larger primary unit normally requires two on its own. The potential drawback is the increased on-street parking that may result, however municipalities are equipped to handle this situation through parking by-laws. This leaves the owner with the burden of responsibility to maintain the law rather than the law disqualify him arbitrarily by centimeters or millimeters for being short on a second parking space.

 2. Allowing a second residential unit to exist without regard to the date of construction of the primary dwelling is a good idea in principle. The associated building code requirements are being adjusted to reflect this. While it may be better than status quo, I fear that builders will use this as a way to drive up costs on new builds. As this is the lesser of two evils, I'm good with this.

  There should also be an established principle that permit homeowners to apply for variances when it comes to complying with secondary suite zoning by-laws. Municipalities such as Brampton don't allow homeowners to apply for relief when it comes to second units (according to their Official Plan). I don't think this a necessary move and believe it is in bad faith to place such restrictions. Being disqualified because of a slightly smaller driveway or lot width that would otherwise be considered "minor in nature" by Committee of Adjustment is poor planning and poor community leadership.

[Original Comment ID: 208658]