(10-31-2017, 10:16 PM)mpd618 Wrote:(10-31-2017, 08:57 AM)MidTowner Wrote: Those setbacks are required for a reason.
Citation needed about reasons behind any of the details of zoning by-law.
Are you asking why setbacks are required, or why a specific setback is required for a specific zoning? I bet the latter doesn't exist. Edit: so probably it's wrong to say "those" setbacks are required for a reason. Who knows why those and not larger or smaller ones.
Viewfromthe42 said "setbacks are not required," and strictly speaking that's true. But it has to be pretty rare for a 0 setback from a property line to be allowed for a new building. If there's no access to the rear of the property from another street, you need some setback from the lot lines to access that part of the building, or to maintain it.
My issue with all of these variances (generally) is that it's impossible for property owners to do their due diligence in deciding whether an adjacent property is likely to be developed in a way that would aversely effect them. That's a subjective determination, of course. For all we know, these residents when deciding to purchase the properties looked at the zoning of the lot next door, and decided that, if it happened, they could live with a fifty-foot-tall building fifteen feet from their yard. Now variances are being granted and it turns out what they thought the neighbouring property was zoned for was a polite fiction.