Committee defers decision on whether to build a house on an undersized lot, pending a site visit

A request to build a house and attached garage on an undersized lot at 1623 Ravenscliffe Road has adjoining property owners concerned.

The request was before Huntsville’s Planning Committee at their February 14 meeting. Town Planner Curtis Syvret told committee that the property in question has approximately 30.8 metres (about 100 ft) of frontage on Ravenscliffe Road and is 929m² (approximately 10,000 square feet) in area. The zoning bylaw requires a minimum size of 1,350m² for lots on private services and a primary lot coverage of 10 per cent, instead of the 15 per cent or 137m² being requested.

“The applicant is proposing to recognize an existing undersized lot as a building lot, as well as to consolidate the primary and accessory lot coverage provisions in order to permit the construction of a single family dwelling. As the Zoning By-law requires existing lots of record to have a minimum lot size of 1,350m² for privately serviced lots and limits primary lot coverage to 10 per cent, relief from these provisions is required,” explained Syvret, who recommended that committee approve the application while also requiring “site plan control to address the retention and on-going maintenance of natural vegetation on the lot.”

He said there are provisions in the Town’s Official Plan to recognize undersized lots provided certain criteria is met such as ensuring that “sufficient lot area exists to address water supply and sewage disposal; as well as generally maintaining the character of the surrounding area. To address these requirements, the applicant has submitted a site plan that shows a modestly sized dwelling that meets all of the applicable yard requirements of the Rural Residential (RR) Zone. In support of the proposed design, the applicant has obtained both an entrance permit and septic system permit to address the provision of safe road access and sewage disposal. As such, there would be sufficient room to maintain landscaped buffers to mitigate the impacts of development,” he noted in his report.

But a neighbouring property owner who was in attendance said when he inquired about the property to the Town; he said he was told that nothing could be built on it because it wasn’t large enough.

“We felt comfortable enough that when we put our house on the property, we pointed our house directly at that piece of property,” he said, adding that they’d be looking directly at the side wall of the house, if it were allowed to be built on the lot. “It just completely takes away the idea of why we’re sitting on 15 acres of land.”

The neighbour said he moved from the city for some more space. He said he was offered to purchase the lot for $500 but when he investigated further he was told he could not build on it, so he didn’t worry about it.

“To be honest, I’m not prepared to vote on this, or I’ll vote against it – one or the other,” said Councillor Bob Stone. “I really would like to get out there and see what the building envelope is going to look like. They’re going to whack all those trees down and fill the whole property with a house… for me to vote on this properly I need to go see it,” he said.

Councillor Jonathan Wiebe said although smaller homes and lots that are more affordable are welcome, the property is not in the urban settlement area where more density and infilling of serviced areas is understood. “I’m with Councillor Stone. I think that perhaps another look out there could help, but that’s a tough one for me,” he said.

Committee agreed to defer a decision in order to allow its members to conduct a site visit first.

Don’t miss out on Doppler! Sign up for our free newsletter here.