Some felt new regulations in Bradford would lead to affordable housing while others believed it would “deteriorate the fabric” of the community.
Those mixed reactions came from both councillors and residents, with about two dozen people in the audience for a public meeting about proposed changes to the town’s zoning bylaw, during a special council meeting on Tuesday evening, May 28.
As previously reported, that change would allow as many as three accessory dwelling units (ADUs) in addition to the main unit for a total of four within a single-detached house, semi-detached house or townhouse, or two ADUs in the main house with one in an accessory building, so long as the property is within the town’s urban boundary (including part of Bond Head) and on municipal water and sewer services.
Of the 14 residents who spoke, most were either opposed to the proposed changes and/or requested that they be put on hold to allow for more public consultation.
Stephanie Sinclair said she was “completely and entirely against this,” and asked council to “pump the brakes,” to give other developments some time to meet the town’s needs, especially because for “a lot of people, their life savings are tied into in their houses,” and with more rentals it’s more likely that “some bad tenants in one house can desecrate an entire neighbourhood.”
In her experience as a realtor, Anastasia Orlando explained that even with good tenants, ADUs overlooking the backyards could be an issue.
“From a real estate perspective the price of that home will go down, because it won’t be attractive,” she said.
Steve Antonarakis said he and his wife moved to Bradford just shy of one year ago, and called the proposal “terrifying,” based on his experience with a multi-generational home next door and the number of cars parked on the street.
“The more people you bring in, the worse it is congested. I don’t want to be in Toronto again. I came here for this reason,” he said. “My concern is that it’s going to turn into a big city too fast, and I don’t like it at all.”
While several councillors, including Mayor James Leduc, agreed to ask staff to hold a second public meeting to gather more feedback, both Mana Masoudi, senior planner for the town, and Alan Wiebe, manager of community planning, reminded everyone that the province had already mandated all municipalities to permit at least two ADUs in addition to the primary residential unit in serviced areas, when they passed Bill 23 on Nov. 28, 2022, which updated the Planning Act.
Including the third ADU in Bradford’s proposed bylaw was approved by council during the April 2 meeting in response to the town’s unsuccessful application in 2023 to the federal government’s Housing Accelerator Fund (HAF) program, which staff had hoped would provide financial resources to help increase the town’s supply of attainable housing.
Positive responses and considering specifics
Other residents were in favour of the proposed changes, with Brandon Mills saying he wanted to represent young people in town, and while he recognized the concerns of others he also felt young people “need a place to live,” and that garden suites are an option.
“None of my family members as of now, six out of us kids, can afford to live in Bradford,” he said.
His father Tom Mills also spoke in favour of the changes, and suggested ADUs could be a “legitimate” option for multi-family homes.
“Part of what makes community is some legacy and some longevity,” he said. “What I see is turnover. People that have traditionally been families in the community can’t afford to be in the community any longer.”
Natasha Leskiw said she was lucky to live on a “decent-sized” lot in the downtown and likes the idea of building an ADU to keep her aging parents nearby while still maintaining their independence.
“That would be huge,” she said.
When it comes to specifics of the bylaw Leskiw acknowledges, “maybe some tweaking would be in order,” but “we need affordable houses and we need places for families.”
Those specifics also concerned Alexandra Wainwright, who worried about “shack-like homes” in the backyards of townhouses, and another resident worried about sufficient access to those yards.
Those ADUs in accessory buildings are set to require an unobstructed 1.2-metre path to allow access for emergency services to the rear of the house or to a detached residential structure in the rear yard, which means middle townhouses wouldn’t qualify for those accessory buildings.
When it comes to the size of accessory buildings being used as ADUs, staff recommended “common” setbacks to provide for drainage and safety purposes, which include: three metres from the main building, 0.6 m from one side of the property and 1.2 m from the opposite side, 1.2 m from the rear of the property, and being no more than 5.4 m tall.
Ivan Zanatta still worried that wouldn’t leave enough greenspace for natural water absorption, putting extra stress on stormwater drains.
He also worried the installation of more accessory buildings as ADUs would result in mature trees being cut down to make room, reducing shade from canopy cover.
Rather than seeing homes turned into improvised fourplexes, Zanatta suggested areas should be zoned for purpose-built fourplexes like the Toronto ones with which he’s familiar.
While he acknowledged “the province is kind of putting a gun to our head,” he said there should be a better long-term solution.
Councillors weigh in
Deputy Mayor Raj Sandhu suggested inspecting homes before issuing permits to ensure compliance, and Ward 1 Coun. Cheraldean Duhaney also pushed for more bylaw enforcement after units are built.
Ward 4 Coun. Joseph Giordano liked the idea of adding granny flats or pool houses to larger properties, but in subdivisions “99 per cent of these do not make sense,” and in most cases are “only going to deteriorate the fabric where we live.”
Both Ward 5 Coun. Peter Ferragine and Ward 6 Coun. Nickolas Harper had concerns over density, parking and a still-growing transit system, but Ferragine reiterated that council was trying to establish the tools to deal with the province’s decision.
Ward 7 Coun. Peter Dykie had concerns over the impacts to older infrastructure like sewers, but the mayor felt it was manageable.
“If we do this correctly, we can have it so that it won’t impact people so badly,” he said.
Council received a report included in the agenda for information, but a decision on the matter isn’t expected to be made until after staff review the public feedback and provide a future report to council.
A date for the second public meeting has not yet been determined, but until council makes a decision, residents can continue to provide feedback in writing to Mana Masoudi, Senior Planner, Town of Bradford West Gwillimbury, Office of Community Planning, 305 Barrie Street, Unit 2, P.O. Box 419, Bradford, ON, L3Z 2A9, or email [email protected].
For more information visit townofbwg.com/ADUzoning.
