I do not make subdivisions except in cases that involve conservation efforts. My latest case involves an agricultural restriction with a few lots reserved for the family to build houses for their children. This is where the seemingly arbirary zoning issues have me confused.
In order to subdivide a lot the frontage requiement is 120 feet, but somehow the width of the lot needs to be 130 feet. This may be a typographical error in the zoning bylaw and I plan to ask the planner for a clearer meaning. In the meantime I thought it might be interesting to try here for opinions.
The definition of "Lot Width" is even more confusing, stating "The distance between the side lines of a lot measured at right angles to the mean direction of such side lines. Calculating the mean direction of the side lines is unnecessarily complicated, and to accomplish what exactly?
I don't understand why they would have such arbitrary and complicated rules of construction. Why not just require the side lines to be paralell at 130 feet distant from one another?
No one is stupid enough to do it, but, one could have two parallel lines that are only 10 feet apart yet have an end dimension of 130 feet. It appears they want the true width not some other weird number.
I've worked in a subdivision from the 1960's that had a spite strip to prevent development by an adjoiner needing access. It is something like 20 feet wide on one end and 30 feet on the other end that is about 1400 feet away.
Here is an excercise in lot design based on the planning rules for a one-acre lot. Both look stupid in my opinion. The first would not allow an adjacent lot to be drawn, and the second would be the same while making unnecessary corners to set for the owner to understand their lines.
Most of these rules have variances that will negate some of the more obnoxious ones. If it's presented to the planner with a letter they may or may not approve the variance. Buuuuttttt, it's always a gamble.
Trick is to get the planners really on-board before commissions vote. Normally, I find that the best way to proceed.
I paid a visit to the planner today. The rule has been amended.
I see that the rule is amended, but did the original rule limit frontage to 120 feet? I have seen minimum frontages, but cant recall a maximum frontage...
The 120 feet was and is the minimum frontage. There just is not a way to have 120 feet as a frontage if the width requirement is 130 feet. The 130 feet minimum width is no longerr a requirement.
Why would want them to require parallel side lines??? That seems like a harsh restriction just for making lot width calculations easier.
And yes, with the definitions you provided it is possible to have 120' frontage and 130' width.
