Four homeowners were all successful in having the Development Appeals Board approve their projects recently, as the board granted zoning bylaw-related variances for three garages and one pergola.
The board met on Sept. 19 to hear from Kelly Sandvold at 217 Coteau Street East, Crystal Kober-McCubbing from Northwest Child Development Centre at 679 Hall Street West, Norman Hales from Horizon Homes Ltd. for 104 Iron Bridge Drive and Angela Klemenz from Klemenz Bros. Homes Ltd. for 1022 Wolfe Avenue.
After reviewing the requests, the board submitted a report with its decisions to city council, which received and filed the document during its Oct. 10 regular meeting.
217 Coteau Street East
Sandvold wanted to build a garage in his front yard, with the northern portion of the property zoned R1 large-lot low-density residential district and the south portion within the R1s2 large-lot low-density and slump hazard overlay.
However, city hall denied his development permit because the zoning bylaw says a residential front yard setback in the R1 district must be a minimum of 7.5 metres (24.6 feet), and his project would have a setback of 4.57 metres (15 feet).
Sandvold told the board that he cannot build a garage at his property’s rear because of slumping and the lack of physical access. Furthermore, the water and sewer lines cut diagonally across 209 and 217 Coteau Street East from the northwest, limiting the space for construction to the west of the house.
The homeowner also wanted to keep the driveway so he could access the proposed garage, while the proposed location would be in line with a neighbouring house. This would maintain a uniform building line.
After review, the appeals board approved the variance request because:
- It would not be a special privilege because the board would grant a similar variance in similar circumstances, while some nearby properties already have setbacks at or near the proposed distance
- It would not amount to relaxing the zoning bylaw because the appeal does not hinder the community’s health, safety or general welfare but could enhance the variety and use of land
- It would not injuriously affect neighbouring properties since the board received no objections
679 Hall Street West
Kober-McCubbing wanted to build a pergola on the west side of Northwest Child Development Centre facing Seventh Avenue Northwest to provide shade for the children.
The daycare has attempted to provide temporary ways of doing that, but none has been convenient, effective or long-lasting, she said. Therefore, the business wants a permanent structure large enough to shade the main area where kids play.
City hall denied her permit because the zoning bylaw says the maximum site coverage allowed for a property in the C1 neighbourhood commercial district is 532 square metres (5,728 square feet). Installing the pergola would result in site coverage of 575 square metres (6,196 square feet.
During the hearing, resident Monique LaFontaine expressed concern about the proposed pergola because the structure would allegedly impede “the pleasant view” from her property, the report said. She also claimed other areas on or near the property could be used for a shaded outdoor play area.
LaFontaine also alleged that granting the appeal would contradict the zoning bylaw since the pergola would not align with the rest of the block’s buildings.
After review, the board granted the variance because:
- It would not be a special privilege since the daycare was properly zoned for commercial use and is under separate regulations from adjacent residential properties
- It would not be a relaxation of the zoning bylaw because the appeal benefits children and staff who spend time outside; the pergola would add to the area since it would be professionally built, aesthetically pleasing and made to withstand the weather
- It would not injuriously affect neighbouring properties because — aside from LaFontaine — no one complained about it, while the structure would be the same height as the daycare building and be open on all sides
104 Iron Bridge Drive
Hales, on behalf of property owner Jim Smith, wanted to build an accessory building on land that is 10 feet lower than the main home’s basement floor. He argued that the height should not affect any neighbours since there are none at the property’s rear, while the roof would not be visible from the street.
The city denied the request because the proposed building would be seven metres (23 feet) high, which contradicts the zoning bylaw requirements of 5.5 metres (18 feet), the report said.
After review, the board approved the appeal because:
- It would grant a similar variance to other parties in similar circumstances or the R7 district, while the property is larger than normal and the garage shouldn’t interfere with neighbouring properties or aesthetics
- It would not relax the zoning bylaw’s provisions because the appeal does not hinder the community’s health, safety or general welfare but could enhance the variety and use of land
- It would not injuriously affect the neighbourhood because no one was opposed and would not result in an unreasonable interference in the use and enjoyment of neighbouring properties
1022 Wolfe Avenue
Klemenz wants to build a detached garage on a property that is zoned R1, while the zoning bylaw says a property in this district cannot have a floor area that exceeds 83.61 square metres or 35 per cent of the rear yard, whichever is less.
The proposed project would be 55.51 square metres (600 square feet) in size, while the rear yard has a total area of 148.06 square metres (1,593.67 square feet), the report said. Therefore, the project would occupy 37.6 per cent — 600 square feet — of the rear yard.
A city official told the board that the rear yard coverage and accessory building requirements ensure that such structures remain secondary to the property’s dwelling. To comply with the mandate, Klemenz would have to shorten the garage to 557.6 square feet.
After review, the board approved the request because:
- It would not be a special privilege since it’s a “minor contravention” and the board would grant similar requests
- It would not hinder the community’s health, safety or general welfare and would not amount to relaxing the bylaw
- It would not injuriously affect the neighbourhood because no one was opposed and would not result in unreasonable interference in the use and enjoyment of adjacent properties
The next regular council meeting is Monday, Oct. 23.
