CORNERS CUT.

Evening Post, Volume LXXXII, Issue 48, 25 August 1911, Page 8

CORNERS CUT.

, SECTIONS AT SEATOUN. PROTEST AGAINST, REMISSION OF BYLAWS. , J When the township of Seatoun was originally laid oub by the Crawford family, the corners of sec lions fronting OH two streets crossing at right angles were,, in many cases, cut off ' with a view of giving additional airspace.c c. In other cases the corners were left tiquarei The area of the full sections not < surtailed by the loss of a, corner was a qi tarter of an acre. The dimensions were 66 t'b frontage by 16of fc depth. The corner t ections, of course, had two frontages, one on each street," 66ft in one aspect ami 465 ft in the other, not deducting the .iiofner removed, a ■ distance of 33ft m\eh way. Naturally the area of >the curtailed corner sections was less by some perches than a quarter of an acre. Thu» is by way of a preliminary ex- j planation to a* curious position uAiat has j arisen in connection ,with these ; corner- j less sections. In 1908 the M 'iramar Borough Council passed a bylaw fixing ! the minimum front-age of buildup, % sec* tioite at 40ft and the minimum 'area at one'eighth of an acre. Under this bylaw j owners of complete corner sections in the township of Seatoun can legally ' put Wo houses 'on their full quarter* >acre section, complying both in respecit'. of frontage, length, aad area with the* bylaws. But the owners of the curtailed corner; sections cannot- do » thi^ as no subdivision could make out of their sections two full one*eighth*acre sections, the minimum area for buildings under the bylaw. • Now the ownera of these, a& it Wero, incomplete {Sections are asking the Borough Council to waive th»» bylaw in their caee so as to allow them to put two houses on their sections. Th b council, recognising the disability undets? which, these section owners were placed,. gave a, not unfavourable ear to their tequesta, the cases being quite exceptional. Today a special meeting of the council^ attended by the- Mayor (Mr. John' Brodie) and Councillors Bowie, Telford, Richards, and Stone, was held, to consider the matter. A deputation of reddente. about half a dozen in number, was introduced by Mr, J. P. Luke, M.P.', who explained that they objected to any remission of the bykw&t all. It was very unfortunate, Mr. Luke declared, when the broader spirit of town-planning was at work that they should find a. tendency to crib, c*bin and confine people by allowing by-kwe which did not fix an are* any too large, to be waived for the sake of a few individuals. It was not fight to try to please the minority a,t the expense of the majority, and the interests of the people must, be safeguarded. To waive the bylaw was not in accordance' with the lead Miramar had gfven in the matter of town.' planning. A member of the deputation observed that owners had purchased the sections with their eyes open. He contended that thie was bttt th"c thin end of the wedge, The Mayor said tha,t if the deputation carried ite sentiments on this matter 1 to an extreme, they would render it almost prohibitive for a man of small means to live out in ihe Sea-touft district. A section at £300 and a house at £500 were beyond the means of the ordinary man. Mr. Brodie assured the deputation that the council, though in agreement on the claim* in these particular ca«e«, had not the slightest intention of allowing any relaxation of the building by-law* anywhere eke. The proposed concession would not place house* in a position without sufficient air space. The deputation severally reiterated their protest. After they had withdrawn the council decld«d to adjourn theu? meeting and postpone coneidera'tion of the matter for a fortnight, and in the meantime to head* what the owners of the pa,rticula,r sections had to say, and to consult the borough, solicitor.