BONNYVILLE – A decision to skirt MD of Bonnyville development codes and regulations will be a costly one for a Fort Kent property owner after MD council voted against providing a development variance for an existing detached garage.
On June 27, MD administration presented a request for a development permit application for a rear yard variance. The applicant was seeking a variance from 16.4 ft. to 3.6 ft. for an existing detached garage with an overhead door that opened towards the rear property line.
The builder of the garage initially sought and successfully obtained a development permit from the municipality for the foundation of the garage in 2014, stated Kristy Poirier, the MD’s development authority officer.
At that time, the builder was informed that a 3.3 ft. setback from rear property line would be acceptable if the garage door faced east, away from the back lane. If the garage door faced a public lane, a 16.4 ft. setback would be required.
“The applicant continued construction of the garage without a building permit and orientated the garage where it would require the 16.4 ft. setback,” Poirier informed council. “The property is now listed for sale and the applicant is looking to resolve the non-compliance.”
The municipality’s administration recommended that council refuse the development variance as the request is greater than the 25 per cent allowable variance outlined in the MD’s Land Use Bylaw.
As council discussed their course of action, it was noted that allowing a variance could create an unintended precedent moving forward.
Coun. Josh Crick acknowledged that while the garage was encroaching on the established setback, he felt that placement would not interfere with traffic or cause any disruptions. He also pointed out that none of the adjacent property owners came forward with concerns related to the variance being requested.
“To me, it doesn't seem like it's a big deal other than the fact that they should not have built a garage without the proper permits in first place,” said Crick.
For other members of council, the bigger concern was the precedent it would set if the garage remained in contravention of the Land Use Bylaw and how future development of the area could be impacted.
“Someday there could be houses on the other side [of the back lane]. We don't know the future, but it’s probably why we have [the setbacks] in place,” noted Reeve Barry Kalinski.
For Coun. Dana Swigart and Don Slipchuk, it came down to safety and a disregard for municipal regulations.
“It's another one of these tough ones because they knew the rules and they chose not to follow them,” Swigart shared with council.
“It's unfortunate because people figure, ‘Well, I'll just do what I want’ and they will just ask for forgiveness later and it's just really not right. There are regulations for that because you don't want garages that close to the alleyway because people don’t see [vehicles] coming out.”
Acknowledging the concerns of fellow council members, Crick said, “I totally understand that. But I can't bring myself, in this case... to tell someone to pick up the garage and turn it, or tear it down based on the direction of the door when I don't think it's going to interfere with anything else.”
Crick followed by putting forward a motion to approve the rear yard development application variance.
The motion would be defeated by council, ultimately denying the development variance.
As such, the applicant is required to either remove the building or obtain a building permit and relocate the building to meet the rear yard setback of 16.4 ft. or re-orientate the building to position the garage door to the east.
As an aside, Deputy Reeve Ben Fadeyiw noted that if the applicant had been set on having the garage doors face the public lane with a shorter setback, they could have made an appeal or requested a variance prior to constructing the contravening garage that was built without a permit.
