In the midst of discussing the city’s new provincially mandated comprehensive zoning bylaw at last week’s council meeting, Coun. John Kenny wondered, “Is there anything in this plan that addresses the monster houses in Confederation (Heights)?”
Describing the dwellings as having five bedrooms and five bathrooms in some cases, “We all heard it as a council,” from residents, he stated. “We don’t want these kinds of houses in Thorold.”
According to city planner Tamara Tannis, “The zoning bylaw looks at the external; not the internal so much. We have to meet density targets through the province’s plans. We are trying to implement 2031 targets,” she added, which include “intensification of residential areas to reduce sprawl. The goal of the growth plan is to increase the number of people per hectare.”
Kenny reiterated that residents are complaining, “’We don’t want places that big,’ and we hear they’re putting bedrooms in the dens and living rooms, and I would like to stop that.”
“The use of the bylaw to reduce the number of people in the houses is not feasible,” replied Tannis.
Chief building official Jason Simpson concurred, saying, “Regulations we must follow do not prohibit the number of rooms—bedrooms, or any kind—in a dwelling. Legislation has passed to make it easier to put more people in homes, increasing the density. The Building Code Act does not regulate how many people can go in a house.”
Weighing in on the matter, Mayor Terry Ugulini told Kenny “Our residential (licensing) bylaw allows us to make sure the property conforms to what it says it is, so if they make six bedrooms out of three bedrooms, we make sure they have a permit.”
“I’m disappointed,” said Coun. Jim Handley, “because we were led to believe they could control the number of bedrooms; what we wanted to do as councillors when we had citizens pack the council chambers.”
Citing mammoth homes like the recent addition to Patricia Street, “built among the wartime houses” as one example, “It’s not what I think is in the best interests of the municipality,” stated Handley.
Coun. Carmen DeRose agreed. “On the campaign trail, that’s all I kept hearing. People are complaining a duplex on West Street has 17 bedrooms. Isn’t there a certain threshold” when it comes to zoning residential areas, he enquired.
“In the zoning bylaw,” said Tannis, “we can only look at what is proposed. When it comes to the building permit, I will say the same thing. There is also nothing to stipulate how many people per bedroom” are allowed. “It’s deemed discriminatory under Human Rights” laws, she added, “to determine how many people can live in any house.”
Describing a 17-bedroom house as “an extreme circumstance,” Simpson told councillors, “If we were to see something like that come through for a building permit, that would raise flags and there are quite a few very expensive provisions the owners would have to go through to accommodate that number of people. The intent is to make it safe for the occupants.”
“How would 17 people possibly get out of probably two doors in that house?” DeRose asked. “Are there any consequences?”
After talking to the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC), DeRose added, “They said they don’t find out until the house goes up for sale, and it’s basically a rental apartment.”
Ugulini said that when a house is inspected for tax purposes, “MPAC knows the plans that have been submitted, and it’s one of the reasons we have residential licensing, so officers can go in. MPAC hasn’t found a way to deal with this in their assessments.”
If homeowners don’t follow bylaws, “they could be taken to provincial court and fined,” said Simpson.
