ward3brighton.ca » Bylaws

Proposed Bylaw Amendments, Additions

Councillor Rob Lantz — Mon, 26 Apr 2010 23:50:21 +0000

We had a special Planning Board meeting this evening to consider proposed amendments and additions to the Zoning & Development Bylaw. The changes we discussed include the following:

Amendments to the process of issuing demolition permits;
new sustainable green development standards;
new section on ground source heat exchange systems (geothermal heating/cooling);
new section dealing with development in areas threatened by sea level rise;
new section regulating the operation of Adult Care Homes;
new section for Urban Forest Retention and Replacement Strategy;
new section for Public Participation Strategy for Major Development Projects.

Planning staff did a great job researching these items. There was some interesting discussion, debate and suggestions from resident members of planning board. As I said, these are proposed changes. They will still need to be approved by council. Get in touch, or leave a comment, if you’d like to discuss.

Hens in the City?

Councillor Rob Lantz — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 13:48:43 +0000

Continuing with the recent bird theme, today I received an inquiry from a resident about keeping egg-laying hens in the City. This is the second time in four months someone has asked me about this. A bit of quick research shows this is becoming a popular trend. A few examples:

Currently, our by-laws severely limit the raising of any livestock within the City, but the trend away from factory farming and toward locally grown food is giving the laying hen hope for a better future as a food-producing urban pet. What do you think? Would something like this “fly” here? Or would it be dead as a Dodo?

Why Get A Building Permit?

Councillor Rob Lantz — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 12:23:33 +0000

Today’s secondary editorial in The Guardian picks up on a short aside I made in my previous post; the granting of a variance for the deck on Olde Brighton Lane sets a very bad precedent, and will make enforcement of our bylaws more difficult in the future. Why bother getting a building permit if you can just go ahead with your project and get it rubber stamped by council after the fact? I’m confident this variance would not have been granted if the application had been received prior to construction. The deck extends to within one foot of the neighbouring property, where the bylaw requires almost ten feet. The rear set back is also exceeded. The residents of the area clearly opposed this. Council simply did not have the stomach to order the deck removed (or corrected) once it was in place. It’s worth pointing out The Guardian editorial is inaccurate on at least one important point:

Melanie MacDonald had requested a side-yard variance to permit a deck at her home at 15 Olde Brighton Lane. However, before the permit was granted, construction proceeded, to the objection of area residents.

MacDonald did not apply for a permit prior to beginning construction. The deck was in place for at least a month before a city planning officer noticed it and forced her to seek approval.