BradfordToday welcomes letters to the editor at [email protected] or via the website. Please include your full name, daytime phone number and address (for verification of authorship, not publication). This letter is in response to the recent controversy about fourplexes and additional dwelling units. This story provides background from the most recent public meeting.
I feel the that town has mislead the residents of Bradford.
In February 2024 council agreed to move forward with a new zoning bylaw amendment permitting two accessory dwelling units (ADUs), one of which can be located outside of the main dwelling unit (for a total of three dwelling units).
On April 2, 2024, (Bradford CAO Georff) McKnight presented a report to council. CAO-2024-4. The report clearly states it was asking permission of council to include fourplexes. The main reason for this request was to help qualify for federal funding.
McKnight’s report refers to fourplexes as “a multi-unit dwelling that typically houses four separate units under one roof. The layout can be side-by-side or stacked on top of each other. Typically, they're a combination of both and are often cited as a good example of 'gentle-intensification', which blend in well within existing neighbourhoods.”
Nowhere in the report that was presented to council was there a discussion about increasing the number of ADUs. Mr. McKnight acknowledged this to me in an email.
Quote: “You are quite correct in noting that my report did not make any reference to permitting three accessory dwelling units (four dwelling units in total). However, from that point forward we have characterized the four units in that manner.”
I ask :
- Why are you even moving forward with this proposal if it’s not what you presented to council.
- You were not given permission to increase the number of ADUs, you were given permission to add fourplexes to the amendment.
- Who gave staff permission to change course and increase the number of ADUs in place of fourplexes without council or the public being part of the decision?
Mr. McKnight rationalized that, “Our focus has been on discussing four units rather than fourplexes. Regardless of how the four units are defined or described, I personally believe the relevant matter is that both would permit four dwellings in the same general housing form with the same impacts on factors like parking, servicing, schools, etc. Either way we end up at the same place so this comes down to a debate on whether council should permit 4 units per lot rather than the three required by Bill 23."
I ask: If there is no difference between four units versus a fourplex, why didn’t staff continue with fourplexes?
Answer: They are not the same. Here is where the town is not being transparent. Fourplexes are limited to under one roof. Four units can be a triplex with an ADU in the backyard. Plus every residential lot in BWG served by municipal services can have four units on every lot. Not an example of gentle intensification.
Lastly if a staff wanted to have a discussion about how residents feel about going beyond what the province requires where is the question on the website — Do you agree with 4 units on every lot or 3? That would be a transparent discussion.
Since the Municipal Act requires: (“Accountability and transparency of the municipality and its operations and of its local boards and their operations “). The manner in which this report was presented to council and the public was not transparent. For this reason I feel that council and the public need to see and hear what the CAO report is requesting permission for.
This report needs to be revised and then presented with the true intention of the permissions it is requesting. Then council can vote in favour of the report or not, using a true democratic process. That way we are all clear about what is being presented.
Helen Crocker
Bradford
