Editor: I am writing this letter as I realize that a lot of people are not aware of the ramifications of the proposed changes to the Land Use Bylaw. The Town is proposing that Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) to include secondary suites, garden suites and garage suites be allowed in all single family or duplex residential areas. I attended the public hearing Feb. 5 and this is what I came away with.
I realize that we have an affordable housing problem and that it is certainly not the result of a single issue. Many things, such as unregulated tourist accommodation and wages in town being too low for many to afford decent rental accommodation both contribute to the problem. Then there is the sheer volume of unoccupied second, third and fourth homes. Perhaps rather than an affordable housing problem we have an unoccupied housing problem.
Rather than addressing these sorts of issues, the changes in the LUB seem to put a lot of onus on the people who already live here permanently, to provide the solution. I do not believe that it is right that I and my neighbours should be expected to be OK with completely changing the face of our R1 neighbourhood because of poor planning and poor regulation.
People pay the premium that it costs to buy in an R1 zone for the quiet, privacy and stability that it affords them. From what I hear from other R1 residents this is a common factor in deciding where to buy. The changes in the LUB essentially change the zoning from single family and duplex to multi-family.
One of the developers speaking at the public hearing commented that they liked the allowable ADU designs because they would not change the face of the R1 neighbourhoods.
In response to that, this is our experience so far. Currently we have one ADU built in our neighbourhood. Most people in our neighbourhood have pretty private back yards as a result of the setbacks that are currently in place.
This new unit is of the type built above a garage and so is more or less on the rear property line. The unit windows and deck face the back alley and consequently look right into my neighbour’s back yards and into their back windows both upstairs and downstairs.
Another issue with this unit is that when it was approved it was our understanding from the bylaw that this had to be the homeowner’s principal residence. It is quite clear that this is not the case as the main house is rarely occupied meaning that there is very little oversight in place for the rental unit.
I encourage all those residents who value their R1 zoning to write to the Town and make their views known, as I understand that this has most effect on the outcome of this type of decision making.
Kim Manning,
Canmore
