The Town of The Blue Mountains will not be taking action to restrict single homes from being built on land zoned for future development.
At its committee of the whole meeting on July 2, council voted unanimously to keep the status quo in place for properties zoned for future development in settlement areas of the town.
Town planning staff had recommended that restrictions be placed on properties zoned for future development to avoid single residences being built on large lots in settlement areas that are meant for future development.
Staff had recommended that a full zoning amendment be required if a property owner wanted to build a single home on land zoned for future development.
In June, council had deferred making a decision on the staff recommendation and had asked staff to bring back more options for consideration.
At the committee of the whole meeting, planning staff returned with a follow-up report with three options:
- The earlier recommendation of a rezoning being required for single homes on lots zoned for future development.
- Single homes being allowed as of right, but with restrictions on their size (200 square metres, and location on the lot) to avoid large homes in the centre of a development lot.
- The status quo, where single homes would continue to be permitted on development lots and town staff would work to assess and incorporate zoning provisions from the older zoning bylaws of Collingwood Township and Town of Thornbury into the current town zoning bylaw. Staff did not recommend this option as it was a substantial project that would eat up considerable staff time.
Planning staff continued to stand by their earlier recommendation.
“We do see that as the best option for the control of future development in the town’s settlement areas,” said planner Carter Triana. “Essentially this entire project is looking to ensure lands that are slated for future development are retained as much as possible.”
Council chose to keep the status quo in place after expressing concerns about restricting how private landowners develop their properties.
Coun. Alex Maxwell said he was concerned the project would be “interfering” with private ownership of land.
Coun. Shawn McKinlay moved the resolution to proceed with the third option presented by staff. McKinlay said at a public meeting about the proposal, the town had heard from property owners concerned about the change.
“We all heard it loud and clear from current owners of properties in these areas that they were extremely concerned that they have yet to build their dream retirement home and they would be subject to limitations,” said McKinlay.
Coun. Gail Ardiel said she couldn’t support taking away a property owner’s ability to build the home they wanted on their land.
“They have the ownership of that and they should be able to build what they want,” she said. “To take that away because it’s zoned D, I just don’t think that’s appropriate.”
