Huntsville’s planning committee recently considered a request to permit a parcel of land on Domtar Road to be severed which would create two lots that would not meet the minimum required frontage of 132 metres under Huntsville’s Official Plan (OP).
The lot, located at 720 Domtar Road, has an area of 4.7 hectares and a current road frontage of 122 metres. If severed as proposed by the applicant, the new lot would have an area of about two hectares and 61 metres of road frontage, while the retained lot would have an area of approximately 2.7 hectares and 61 metres of frontage on Domtar Road.
Town planning staff recommended that the application be denied since the road frontage on both lots would not comply with the policies of the OP.
“These policies promote fiscally responsible planning for the rural area and community as a whole by simultaneously discouraging unsustainable development patterns consistent with ‘ribbon sprawl’ (development characterized by low-density development along publicly maintained infrastructure) and by steering growth instead towards designated intensification areas where services and infrastructure exists or can be expanded to accommodate new higher-density housing options in an economically prudent manner. As both the severed and retained lots would have a frontage of 61m, whereas a minimum lot frontage of 134m is required, the proposal does not appear to be in keeping with the requirements of the Official Plan,” noted Huntsville planner Adam Ager in his report to committee.
Despite planning staff’s recommendation to deny the application, the applicant, Rory Eckenswiller, was before committee at its July 14 meeting asking for an exemption.
He said the new lot could enable a house to be constructed on it on a year-round road, and would meet the minimum lot size of the OP as well as the character of the area.
“Also, I’d add that this application serves the purpose to add to an affordable lot selection. It has been noted in previous minutes of this committee that there’s a shortage of affordable lots in the area,” said Eckenswiller.
Councillor Jason FitzGerald said there are lots with similar frontages in the area and “if there’s enough area to put private services on this lot, I believe that we should allow this lot to be created.”
Huntsville Mayor Karin Terziano said she’s concerned committee is walking a slippery slope. “All of those smaller lots in that vicinity, have they all been created through exemptions or were they created long before we had an Official Plan that had the [minimum required] frontage?” she questioned.
“I just worry sometimes that we have an Official Plan and we sit here
and make exemption to it on a regular basis until the area
is smaller lots because we made that many exemptions.”
~ Huntsville Mayor Karin Terziano
Councillor Jonathan Wiebe said he did not consider the proposed new lot to be an affordable one, although he was willing to consider it due to the nearby intersection and said he’s not opposed to higher development concentrations where there is more traffic and more of a setback from the road. He also said he likes that the hydro pole is on the same side of the road, so more hydro wires would not need to be added to the area. “Given all that I think I’m warming to the idea of supporting this,” he added.
In the end, a majority of committee approved the severance of the lot while Mayor Terziano and Councillor Bob Stone voted against it.
All planning committee decisions must be ratified by council.
Don’t miss out on Doppler!
Sign up here to receive our email digest with links to our most recent stories.
Local news in your inbox so you don’t miss anything!
Click here to support local news
An Official Plan is written to guide decisions. There is no point in having one if exemptions are granted. Civil societies follow the rules. They should be enforced. When changes or amendments need to be made there is a process and a time when this is done. Without rules and respect for them there is chaos. There is also a feeling that citizens are treated unequally and unfairly. Thank you Mayor Terziano for standing up for respect for fairness and ordered society.
An interesting comment by our mayor with regard to the Huntsville Official Town Plan.
Refer to some previous comments as to why variances were allowed. One was in April, allowing a duplex to be built in a farm field; the town will get the taxes of course and secured the promise of root crops?
It was deemed to show a “little more dynamic thinking” than council was used to. There was also the ubiquitous ‘thinking outside the box’ accolade. Novel eh!
Now there is the request for variance that seems to have one councilor “warming to it” because the hydro poles are in the right spot! I wonder if the hydro feed was even considered in the aforementioned case and whether the councilor even knows which side of the road the poles are on.
I think it is obvious that the ‘Official Plan’ is nothing more than a jumping off point in the process of plateau bargaining. The plan being the first step in achieving a variance. If town planners are dealing with it as such, why shouldn’t developers? Council doesn’t seem capable of stopping it.
There is now a decision pending on making the jump of building height to 16 meters from 11 meters.
Remember children saying “You let them do it! Why can’t we?” Much the same as the comment that a Mr. Simpson left the council with. ‘They’ went over 11 so we want to go to 16. Or we’re gonna pout!
Drive around the town I call home and tell me all this reminds you of Huntsville, and that these changes are all for the best!
They won’t print much of what I’d like to say.
I think it humorous that Mr. Simpson would, “want to point out that the tallest of these two buildings will be ten meters lower than the top of Vernon View.”
Kinda’ like; it would be nice if we could to get up there and block that view!
Well I called the by law about a house across the street from us that was zoned two apartments and they made it into a boarding house. Where does that fit in with the plan why is it not charged a fee the same as air bnb etc. And there isn’t enough parking for the residents and the police have stopped twice because the car was parked within 15 feet of the intersection. I even asked the by law officer if there was a by law for boarding houses, he didn’t know and said he would call me back that was a month ago ,he hasn’t called.
Planning is hired to advise Council on property issues . Advise them to stop issuing exemptions or even considering them if they are counter to the Official Plan. ALL Council should be questioning these Planning decisions . The tone of one comment suggesting payoffs was a Cheapshot with NO basis in fact !
“planning committee decisions must be ratified by council”
Apparently not.
Ratify: to approve and sanction formally
Antonyms of ratify: decline, deny, disallow, disapprove, negative, reject, turn down, veto
I’m guessing it’s a frustrating (and ongoing?) experience to do one’s job of extensive research and careful writing, to have it ignored. And it must be infuriating to see exemptions when one has made a similar application and had it turned down. Arbitrary, what? Time to update the “official plan”?
I am encouraged by the stance of Mayor Karen Terziano on this issue. An official plan considers the big picture of our services, landscapes and future. It should provide protection from unscrupulous developers and opportunists (and there are some) who advocate for few restrictions and try to sell the rest of us on a “hope for the best” approach to development. Meanwhile they clear forested slopes, fill wetlands and add extra stories to their skyline-blotting, multi-unit buildings just to bloat their bank accounts with a few more millions. When we have an official plan that is consistently respected, everyone knows exactly what they can do with their property when they buy it. It’s fair to everyone. Stick to the plan. Please.
The Mayor is absolutely correct. Any adhoc change is a potential precedent to the official plan.
Change here and why not change everywhere.
Council sets policy, staff administers. Let them do their job.
Why have an official plan if we continually make exceptions
I dont understand the towns need to medal in private properties to which they service and collect taxes. Certainly development should be consistent and generate income for the town but interference with the private individual should be minimal and disallowed. The town should be encouraging growth God knows the town knows how to indebt us and spend frivolously. Perhaps they should quit being dictators and do the job they are elected to do. Which is infact improve the lives of the community.
It always amazes me that some people get these exemptions while others lose out. It must be who you know not what you know. Had a similar situation but of course was denied
So let me get this straight …in 2014 when my father asked for his two parcels of land to be put back to the original parcels which was aprox 42 acres and another at a little over 5 acres you denied the request and said we had to have 10 acres due to being on the main road but had before severed 4 acres across the road from him and now you are letting this happen just up the road from us now with even fewer acres…how unfair is this now…
My father has since passed away but hes probably turrning over up there in disgust as am I down here…guess we just didnt offer enough money
Not a very happy taxpayer!!!