Homeowner Walt Watterson wants to construct a detached garage on his property, but even if he could, he would not be able to access it because there is no legal rear lane.
Frustrated with the situation, which he describes as “untenable, unfair, defies logic and is not conducive to property improvement,” he spoke to city council on April 24, asking for changes so he could pursue his project.
His requests included having the city subdivide the entire block at its expense to alleviate the problem, eliminating the bylaw that requires him to register a “shed,” and giving all affected residents a tax reduction as long as the community and city use the back lane.
Instead, council voted unanimously to receive and file the report because city administration indicated it would produce a solution to address similar situations facing 20 other blocks. Those blocks face these problems because of how municipal officials surveyed the lots in the early 1900s.
Before he purchased 1076 Alder Avenue on Sept. 19, 2022, Watterson contacted city hall on Sept. 6, asking if he could construct a detached garage adjacent to the back alley, a council report explained.
City administration gave him information on detached garages and accessory buildings and suggested he obtain a surveyor’s report to address questions about easements and property line locations.
Based on available information, officials expressed no concerns with the development and said Watterson needed a development/building permit so city staff could formally review the property.
Watterson took this instruction as “the unofficial green light” to purchase the property and pursue the project. He had a $1,200 survey conducted afterward, which he submitted to city hall with the permit application.
However, after review, city hall informed him that while there was a physical rear lane between the 1000 blocks of Alder Avenue and Main Street North, there was no legal access because 13 other property owners owned portions of the rear lane, the report said.
“This did seem odd as there are several existing garages off the alley, and in fact, the city uses the alley to pick up garbage and recycling,” Watterson’s letter to council said. “Apparently, we can construct a storage shed on the property; however, we would not be able to use the shed as a garage to store vehicles in … .
“We now own a piece of property that we cannot develop as we desire … and we will be forced by the city to register a shed with land titles, thereby devaluing our property when we go to sell,” he added.
Other properties sharing this three-metre rear lane where a garage or storage shed has been constructed fall into two categories, a council report explained.
One group received permits from city hall to access their garages before 2008, while the restriction that requires legal access for permit approval came into effect in 2011 after council instituted the new zoning bylaw.
A second group obtained a permit for a storage shed, but this development does not require legal access because it’s not for parking vehicles.
If the city acquired ownership of the rear lane and subdivided it, all 14 affected property owners must agree and pay the costs — $5,000 each — to register the new lot with the province, the report said. When this was previously proposed, only three owners consented and transferred ownership to the municipality.
City hall suggested that Watterson obtain legal access by negotiating an easement agreement with his neighbours, but he found that the plan “will fail miserably” since residents are unwilling or unable to invest the money.
Watterson told council that he finds it a “bizarre situation” that other city blocks face similar circumstances with accessing their rear lanes. He thought the city’s forefathers made an error surveying that land and it needed to be corrected.
The next regular council meeting is Monday, May 8.
