Appeals board denies resident’s application for first time in ages
For the first time in a while, the Development Appeals Board denied an application from a resident who wanted to alter his property contrary to the zoning bylaw. The appeals board met by conference call on June 16 to hear applications from three residents who wanted to change their property and whom city hall had already denied. After review, the board upheld city hall’s decision to deny the application from Mackenzie Hamilton at 951 Hawthorne Crescent but approved applications from Jeff Kwasney at 1011 Iroquois Street West and Karrin Salinger at 446 Ross Street West.
City council reviewed the board’s report during the June 29 regular meeting and approved a motion to receive and file the document.
Hamilton asked for permission to construct a front addition with a proposed front yard setback of 5.5 metres (18.08 feet), which is contrary to the 7.5 metres (24.6 feet) in the zoning bylaw, the report explained.
He explained that the house is a bi-level with a small front entryway and no front closet, which makes it challenging to get his children in and out of the entryway since it is small. He wanted to build the addition to provide more space at the front.
The board voted to deny Hamilton’s application for three reasons:
• All houses along Hawthorne Crescent conform to the setback requirement of 7.5 metres, so granting the appeal would negatively upset the neighbourhood aesthetics;
• Granting the variance would be contrary to the purpose and intent of the zoning bylaw, which aims to maintain a uniform building line along each block;
• One resident provided a negative letter about the proposed change, while another resident sent in a letter saying he had no concerns, but did not give the reasons for this attitude; the board decided to deny the application since it would “injuriously affect neighbouring properties.”
Kwasney asked for permission to construct a rear addition with a proposed side yard setback of one metre (3.3 feet), which is contrary to the 1.2 metres (four feet) prescribed in the zoning bylaw, the report said.
City hall argued against allowing the proposed construction, saying side yard setback requirement allows for sunlight to reach neighbouring properties. It also provides greater privacy, allows easier access to the rear yard for utility and other services, provides space for landscaping, allows windows on the east side of the buildings, and provides a transitional space between buildings of different heights.
After review, the appeals board approved for three reasons:
• It would not be a special privilege since city hall has granted similar variances to neighbouring properties in the same zoning district, while the proposed variance is only 200 millimetres (seven inches) different from the zoning bylaw;
• It would not be contrary to the intent and purpose to the zoning bylaw, while the variance is minimal with the enclosed deck aligning with the setback of the house;
• It would not injuriously affect any neighbouring properties.
Salinger asked the board for permission to construct a deck with a proposed side yard setback of zero metres, which is contrary to the 0.9 metres (three feet) in the zoning bylaw, the report said.
She explained her property is a corner lot with an alley on one side, an alley at the back and no houses to the rear. The proposed deck would come off a covered deck, while she proposed to build a fence on the property line behind the deck. There would be a five-foot boulevard separating the fence from the alley.
The appeals board granted Salinger’s application for three reasons:
• It would not be a special privilege since city hall has granted similar variances to neighbouring properties in the same zoning district and the location of the property would not interfere with other properties;
• It would not be contrary to the intent and purpose to the zoning bylaw, while the variance would not affect sunlight or privacy to neighbouring properties;
• It would not injuriously affect any neighbouring properties.