The Maverick (64 Margaret/217-229 Victoria N | 6 fl | completed

[ijmorlan]

[quote pid='44435' dateline='1509535999']
Also, I wouldn’t make a distinction between fences and buildings. It’s really none of my business whether the 2m tall structure on my neighbour’s property line is a fence or one wall of a building.

I think your idea is neat, and I don't want to seem negative about your post generally. Just a comment on this part: when you build a fence on the property line, the other half becomes your neighbour's fence. Okay, maybe not in every sense, but the neighbour can paint it if he wants, and the municipality will generally stay out of disputes about fences on a property line- if a neighbour doesn't want a fence, generally the solution is to build it set back a foot.

When 0 setbacks are approved, there's generally some sort of easement granted for maintenance. If your neighbour builds a 2m wall on his property line, and then you subsequently want to build a 2m wall on your property line, aren't they now a party wall? Is it okay if your neighbour ties into your roof? He'd have to, wouldn't he? You may have a dispute about how that's done.
[/quote]

Yes, small setbacks for buildings do introduce property-line-related issues that don’t exist with larger setbacks, and for buildings more so than for fences. At the same time, I think it is a matter between the two property owners, probably aided by statute and common law, rather than a matter for zoning to forbid/require certain particular resolutions. The current approach in most zones seems to be to take the easy way out and require space, much of which ends up being utterly useless. Think of how many houses in many areas of the city are separated by maybe 1-2m of space divided equally between the two properties, with a fence between them. The space ends up being completely useless. Even if every house were just shifted over to reach the property line on one side, you would then have a more useful 1-2m space on the other side between that house and its neighbour.

The effect is even greater with large setbacks required for some zones. Some of these make some sense where zones meet — for example, I believe an MR4 small apartment building requires a fairly substantial rear setback, which if it is against a single-family backyard might make sense. But if it’s two MR4 buildings backing on each other, who cares? And even if it is a single-family backyard, the owner might be willing to take $10000 to allow the MR4 apartment to come a couple of metres closer to their backyard, and if they are, it isn’t really the business of the City to tell them they can’t.