Imagine building a perfectly good deck in your backyard only to have to tear it out because it violated the town’s zoning bylaw.
That’s exactly what happened to resident Rob Hunter.
A bylaw officer told the Harvest Hills Boulevard resident he would have to rip up his deck because it was too close to his back fence.
“I love spending my Friday ripping up my beautiful deck because of East Gwillimbury’s archaic zoning bylaws,” Hunter said.
“New homebuyers beware of ridiculous six-to-seven-metre setbacks.”
Hunter estimated he had put $1,000 toward the new deck. He didn’t think he needed a building permit for the deck because it was considered a floating structure that was not attached to the house.
Hunter’s backyard is eight metres deep, so the zoning bylaw makes it difficult to build anything in his backyard.
“Who wants to build a tiny deck? You basically can’t build anything,” he said. “People don’t know you can’t build.”
The town was made aware of the complaint through a letter to council. Town staff said the deck in question was built without a building permit.
Submitting a permit application prior to construction would have provided the opportunity for staff to work with the owner to design a deck, which would have addressed the owner’s needs and complied with required setbacks.
The town said a back deck on Harvest Hills requires a six-metre setback from the rear lot line, although it allows a two-metre encroachment. In Hunter’s situation, he could build a four-metre deck in his eight-metre backyard.
The East Gwillimbury bylaw is out of date, Hunter argued, as it was designed for larger lots. When comparing East Gwillimbury’s zoning bylaw to that in Newmarket, Hunter’s criticism has merit.
A floating deck in Newmarket can come within 1.2 metres of the rear lot line. So, while Hunter could build a four-metre deck on his property, he would be able to build a 6.8-metre deck in Newmarket.
Council is looking at revamping its bylaw as new houses are built in Sharon, Holland Landing and Queensville.
Councillor Marlene Johnston defends the town’s bylaw, adding, at the time the bylaw was written, the setbacks made sense.
However, staff, who added rear yard setbacks for approved new developments similar to Harvest Hills are currently seven metres, will revisit the bylaw and report back to council on what in the bylaw, if anything, can be amended.
