After initially being denied development permits by city hall, two homeowners will be able to proceed with their construction projects after the Development Appeals Board gave them the go-ahead.
The board heard the appeals of Ken Quan and Curt Lorge on Nov. 19 and issued the approvals a week later. A report about the appeals and the subsequent approvals was later presented at city council’s Dec. 9 regular meeting, where council voted unanimously to receive and file the report.
Ken Quan
Quan lives at 1054 Monk Avenue and wanted to develop a three-season sunroom that would result in a site coverage of 42.6 per cent, contrary to the 40 per cent as laid out in the zoning bylaw.
According to the report, there were several miscommunications between Quan and city administration, which led to Quan beginning construction of the deck and additional porch space, specifically, pile installation, deck framing and structural beam installation.
After reviewing the appeal, the Development Appeals Board granted Quan’s request based on three reasons:
- There would not be any special privilege since city hall has granted similar variances to other properties in the R1 district over site coverage. The board indicated it would grant a similar variance to anyone else in the same circumstances
- The request is not contrary to the bylaw since the additional 2.6-per-cent overage of on-site coverage would not be enough for the project to cause harm to the neighbourhood; a contractor is completing the project with blueprints, and; the variance does not contradict the goals of the Official Community Plan
- The request does not injuriously affect the neighbouring properties and the neighbours have not brought forward any concerns
Curt Lorge
Lorge lives at 1117 Henleaze Avenue and requested a permit to replace his existing front porch with a new one. However, city hall denied his permit since the front yard setback would not adhere to the minimum front yard setback requirement as laid out in the zoning bylaw.
The building on the property was constructed in 1930 and is considered a non-conforming building due to the front yard setback, the report explained. Lorge had started construction on a new front porch and was unaware that a permit was required to build. The new front porch would have the same dimensions as the old one.
After reviewing the overall case, the Development Appeals Board granted Lorge’s request based on three reasons:
- The replacement construction is the same as the old porch with the exception of the roofline, which does not deter from the neighbourhood aesthetics; the development is consistent with neighbouring properties, and; neighbouring properties also have small frontages
- Since the house has existed 85 years, Lorge is simply replacing a worn-out porch with a new, safe porch that meets the building code, which is not contrary to the zoning bylaw
- The replacement porch would not injuriously affect the neighbouring properties; in fact, two neighbouring property owners sent letters that support the construction
The next regular council meeting is Monday, Dec. 16.
