The Westbrook Planning Board agreed unanimously to recommend against removing a provision that allows people to build on small, substandard lots in the city, after property owners came out in droves Tuesday night to defend their right build on the lots.

Westbrook residents argued that their investment in the city and their faith in its comprehensive plan should give officials pause before taking away their right to build on small lots – an idea proposed by city councilors who had received complaints about homes on substandard lots ruining the character of neighborhoods. City Councilors will get the final say on whether to remove the provision.

Marion Anderson, of Maple Street, has no plans to build on her substandard lot, but said it’s “gross discrimination” for the city to deny her from developing the property in the future, considering how many people have been able to build on the same size lots in the past.

“I don’t think it’s fair to slam it in the rest of our faces,” Anderson said at the meeting. “Allow us to do what people have already done with their lots.”

The existing provision allows the development of so-called substandard lots of record – 5,000-square-foot lots that were subdivided before the current 7,500-square-foot standard was put in place.

According to Code Enforcement Officer Rick Gouzie, there are about 110 substandard lots of record in Westbrook that have already been developed and about 50 more that could be.

According to City Administrator Jerre Bryant, the idea behind allowing homes to be built on lots of substandard size was to create more affordable housing. The homes are less expensive to build than a new subdivision would be because the lots are already being serviced by the city’s sewers and roads.

Elise Kiely said she and her husband “answered the call” of the city’s comprehensive plan to purchase their property on Webster Street for the purpose of creating affordable housing. She called the proposal to remove the ability to develop it “arbitrary and capricious.”

“We and others have invested real dollars in these lots,” she said.

Judy George said she liquidated her retirement fund to buy her lot on Haskell Street and called the proposal to remove her right to build, which would render her property invaluable, incomprehensible.

Rick Nelson, of Tolman Street, was one of few residents to speak in favor or removing the provision. He said digging the foundation of a house built on a substandard lot next to his own caused $5,000 of damage to his property.

“Guess who had to pay for it? Me,” he said. “I don’t want to put my neighbors through the same thing.”

City Councilor Drew Gattine said, in his time in office, he’s gotten innumerable calls from people complaining about substandard lots being developed in their neighborhoods, but few showed up to the meeting Tuesday. For them, the damage has already been done.

However, Planning Board members Rene Daniel and Dennis Isherwood said they know firsthand how the character of neighborhoods can change from the development of substandard lots.

“I’ve complained a lot about what happened on my street, but I’ve also seen good things happen,” Daniel said about attractive houses he’s seen built on substandard lots.

Daniel said he was disappointed to see his own neighborhood change, but after listening to residents speak Tuesday, he said he wouldn’t be able to support removing the provision that allows them to build. However, he said, there need to be more regulations about what is and isn’t allowed.

“We need design standards,” he said.

Isherwood agreed.

He said his street, Anderson Avenue, “has been devastated” by the development of several substandard lots. He said he would not support allowing others to build on smaller lots “unless you give me a tool to limit the size of the houses.”

City Planner Molly Just said design standards that address the architecture, driveway placement and landscaping of houses built on substandard lots do exist. However, she said, the scale of houses is not addressed.

Planning Board members agreed that making sure the size of the house is appropriate for the size of the lot would be imperative in continuing to allow substandard lots to be developed. With the request that design standards are improved, the board unanimously recommended that the City Council not remove the provision that allows the development of substandard lots of record.

The City Council had not yet scheduled a date to consider the proposal by American Journal deadline.