GUYSBOROUGH — The Municipality of the District of Guysborough (MODG) Council, concerned about setting a precedent for land use, has denied a request to allow a shipping container on a residentially zoned property near Hadleyville.
In a Nov. 26 letter to council, resident Stephen Henley stated: “We have farm equipment presently requiring storage. Since we are on 40 acres, mostly treed [and] the nearest neighbour [is] over 1,000 feet away, we are asking for an amendment to the bylaw, allowing us to have [the container] placed totally out of sight from the highway, the neighbours or even from the water. Given [these] facts ... I think this is a reasonable request.”
But, in a briefing note to council, MODG Development Officer Debbie Torrey explained that amending the land-use bylaw to allow a shipping container for use in a residential zone as anything other than an “engineer-designed modified-container for human habitation, such as [a] tiny home” will set a dangerous precedent.
“It will be difficult to deny future applications, and defend previous decisions to deny requests of this nature,” she wrote, noting that commercial-use containers are permitted on commercially zoned properties in the MODG.
Meanwhile, nothing prevents the owner of a residential property in the municipality from erecting accessory buildings for equipment. “Those [structures] are assessable, which means you can collect taxes on them,” she elaborated at the Dec. 4 committee of the whole meeting. As the by-law stands now, shipping containers used for non-residential purposes in residential areas would not be “assessable.... [They’re] also an eyesore in a lot of cases.”
Moreover, she stated, while the Hadleyville property in question “may be approximately [40 acres] in size, there are many small and undersized residential lots throughout MODG. Amending the land-use bylaw to allow shipping containers on residential zoned property [to be used in this way] would involve the same process as conducting a complete planning review and will take some time.”
She added: “It’s always a decision of council ... but, from a staff perspective, our concern is that [in allowing this amendment] you might see an influx of people with very, very tiny lots [coming forward] ... It’s hard then to say no.”
Council unanimously voted to deny the request.
