Close but no cigar for proponent of a four-unit rental building on Susan Street West

One vote made all the difference to the proponent of a four-unit rental building on a property located at 12 Susan Street West.

The current dwelling on the property was the original bandshell for the Anglo Canadian Leather Company Concert Band. It is now a two-storey duplex with two rental units. The property has an area of about 1,244m2. The property also contains a garage. The lot has about 31 metres of frontage on Payne Drive and 33 metres of frontage on Susan Street West.

Huntsville resident Doug Spiller was before the Town’s Committee of Adjustments for a second time on May 4 seeking approvals in order to proceed with plans to add a four-unit, two-storey building on the property. He was also seeking approvals to reduce the required front-yard setback from seven to four metres and reduce the required setback for a parking space from three metres to none along the Payne Drive lot line and to two metres along the Susan Street West lot line.

Initially he brought the application before committee in April. At that time, neighbouring property owners expressed concerns with the exhaust the additional vehicles associated with more units would create. Concerns were also expressed with the proposed building blocking the sun from neighbouring yards as well as the impact the additional rental units would have on their property values.

Committee deferred a decision on the application pending discussions between the proponent and neighbouring property owners to see if the concerns expressed could be mitigated.

The applicant returned to committee in May proposing an interior two-metre fence and hedge as a buffer on the east side of the property, but that did not seem to be enough to sway committee or the neighbours.

“It’s nice to have a fence but that won’t solve all the problems,” said one of the neighbours present at the meeting. He again expressed concerns with the exhaust of additional vehicles making its way to neighbouring properties as well as the impact on property values and the shadow the building would cast on a neighbouring property. “Neither one of us can understand how you can shoehorn a 65-foot building into that small space,” he said, adding that exhaust as a result of transport traffic in that area is already severe.

We just oppose it and we think we have good reason for doing so. It just affects our way of life.One of the neighbouring residents

Spiller said he’s proposing to move the entrance to the parking area further away from the residents. In terms of property values he said he’s not qualified to speak on that issue, and in terms of the proposed building casting a shadow he noted that for most of the year the sun does not get into his own property’s yard or that of his neighbour’s unless the sun is at its high point as it is blocked by trees.

“The existing garage I believe is 28-feet deep and what we’re actually proposing is to remove that, put a bigger building in that’s 65 feet and not increase its height (from the Susan Street side). It would be pretty much the same height starting off as what the garage is,” he said.

In terms of lot coverage, Spiller noted that it is a very large town lot and spoke about the need for more rental apartments in town. He said his partner and he own at least another dozen apartments in town “and we never have empty apartments, we have waiting lists.” He assured committee the apartments would be filled quickly and said some would be wheelchair accessible.

Still the proposal did not sit well with some.

My problem with this proposal is that by going down and looking at the site I think lot coverage is an issue because it seems like you’re cramming the buildings close together. Having two multi-residential buildings on one lot really isn’t in keeping with the current neighbourhood, so I am not terribly supportive of this. Councillor Karin Terziano

Terziano asked Spiller whether he had considered severing the lot in two. Spiller said he had, but that lot coverage would become an issue and said it’s an avenue he explored but decided against.

Councillor Nancy Alcock echoed Terziano’s concerns and asked Spiller how he determined to have six units on the property instead of, for example, four.

There’s a lot of cost to put infrastructure in just for one apartment and when you share that across four additional apartments the cost per unit comes down and makes it a much more affordable and viable project. At a certain number it makes sense and at a certain number is doesn’t make sense because of the upfront cost base just to bring in water and sewer.Proponent Doug Spiller

Councillor Jonathan Wiebe asked the Town’s Manager of Planning Kristin Maxwell what the lot coverage would be with the proposal in place. “With this proposal the lot coverage that would be in place is 24 per cent and in the Residential 3 zone I think 35 per cent lot coverage is permitted,” she said.

In terms of the heritage designation on the property because of the bandshell, Spiller assured committee that the building would not be impacted. He again argued that the property is a large lot compared to other lots in town and said it has excellent ingress and egress.

However, in the end and despite staff’s recommendation to approve the project pending the applicant getting a heritage permit and putting up a two metre high fence along the east interior side lot line, the application was defeated. Initially the vote was at an impasse as committee was split in half with councillors Wiebe and Terziano voting against it and councillors Alcock and Jason Fitzgerald voting in favour, until Councillor and committee chair Bob Stone broke the tie by voting against it.