Country life

Apartments in rural outbuildings pits council against planners

Are rural apartments part of the answer to the growing challenge of affordable housing in Prince Edward County? It appears many councillors believe they should be.

Last week County council unanimously approved, over the objection of its planning staff, to allow a special exception to a rural homeowner and now a landlord to continue providing rental apartments in two outbuildings on her property. (Six members of council were absent).

In doing so it may be jumping ahead of an official plan rewrite currently underway; or perhaps hoping to guide its direction.

The official plan as it is now written clearly discourages development of residential apartments on rural properties.

Marta Lambert moved to the County in 2011 from Coe Hill. She and her family bought a century home on Loyalist
Parkway just west of Bloomfield. There were three outbuildings on the three-acre property. The largest of the buildings had been converted to a yoga studio by a previous owner.

Lambert reports in her presentation to the planning department that immediately after buying the property, her personal circumstances changed. She was left with a hefty mortgage and children to put through school.

She decided to adapt the yoga studio into a one bedroom apartment. There wasn’t much to be done—adding a tub to the existing bathroom and creating a bedroom in the already renovated and comfortable space. Last year she modified a cold storage facility in another outbuilding to create a second one bedroom apartment on her property.

“The income from the two apartments allows me to keep a roof over my children’s head,” wrote Lambert in her appeal to the County’s planning department.

But the current zoning of rural residential doesn’t allow Lambert to use the outbuildings in this way, so she appeared before the County’s planning committee last week to ask that she be allowed to continue to operate the two residential apartments.

The planning department recommended denial of Lambert’s request because it doesn’t conform to the County’s official plan, nor is it consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement— the province’s invisible hand in how land in Ontario is developed.

At issue is the fact the property was one of two severed from a larger farm in 2010. Planning folks are justifiably wary of cutting up prime agricultural land. This is because the evidence is abundant and clear that such divisions open the door to further severances. It also leads to uses that may be inconsistent to agricultural production—such as increased residential density. More people living on a property tends to mean greater pressure on farmers to minimize noise, odours and other activities associated with farming.

The concerns with Lambert’s property go further than potential conflict with nearby farming practices. Lambert’s existing septic system is inadequate for her home plus two apartments, according to the County’s Chief Building Official Andy Harrision. Further, Harrison cautions “there appears to be insufficient ground water in the area to supply the two new apartment units.”

Lambert’s neighbours aren’t happy with the changes to their rural neighbourhood. Mary MacDonald lives next door. She worries about the environmental impact of the “illegally converted units”. She thinks council ought to be concerned about opening the door to barns, sheds and outbuildings across Prince Edward County being converted to residential apartments.

Linda and Dave Mather live just to the west of Lambert across Mathie sideroad. They urged council to deny the special exception because it would affect their enjoyment and value of their property. They worried, too, about the precedent council might set on intensifying residential development in rural areas of Prince Edward County.

On the other side of the argument, real estate broker Gary Morden says the apartments are well-built accommodations that create a meaningful purpose to an obsolete building. He says the Provincial Policy Statement and the County’s Official Plan need to be updated to permit alternative accommodation styles.

“They think we all want to live in urban areas on very expensive municipal services,” wrote Morden in support of Lambert’s request. He says renters, and those seeking lower cost accommodation, want more diversity and choice about where they live— and not forced to live in dense urban areas—and that the planning rules need to change to address this desire.

Councillor Jim Dunlop entered the discussion ready to deny the special exception. He worried about setting a precedent. But he was persuaded to vote in favour owing to the unique circumstances in Lambert’s appeal.

If the property were located just a few kilometres to the east, for example, such use of outbuildings would be allowed and indeed encouraged, suggested Dunlop. He notes, as well, that Lambert would have been permitted to offer the units as tourist accommodation under the current rules—a fact he says discriminates against renters. Given the need in the County for greater rental accommodation in the $750-per-month range that Lambert rents her two units, Dunlop was persuaded the benefit to the community outweighed the potential risks to neighbours and surrounding farm and land owners.

He said, too, the fact the units are one-bedroom, and will remain so, puts a hard limit on the number of people who will ever live on the property.

Lambert has committed to expanding the septic system to meet the County’s standards. She noted, too, that the apartments share a 2,200 gallon water reservoir that is filled with treated municipal water.

Council will be asked to ratify this planning committee decision on August 27. It may choose to reconsider whether this is the best way to rewrite planning policy.

“I really feel her personal issues and our personal objections cancel each other out,” said Mary MacDonald. “The only real issue is the precedent it sets for rural development in Prince Edward County.