County of Stettler says buildings fine where they are

ECA Review/Submitted
Written by ECA Review

 

The County of Stettler MPC approved a variance for two existing buildings that were in compliance do not currently meet the required setbacks. ECA Review/Submitted

The County of Stettler Municipal Planning Commission (MPC) granted a variance for buildings that didn’t meet the exact setbacks. The decision was made at the May 24 regular meeting of the MPC.

Board members read an application for variance, which asked to allow two buildings to remain where they are despite not meeting certain setback distances.

County Planner Rich Fitzgerald presented the application from property owners Thomas and Lindsay Nibourg for the property located at Lot 1 Block 1 Plan 072 0433.

“The applicant is proposing to bring the subject property into compliance by applying for a 16 per cent variance to the front yard setback for the dwelling (109 feet instead of 125 feet) and a 38 per cent variance for the ancillary building (78 feet instead of 125 feet),” stated Fitzgerald’s report to the board.

“The subject property is located adjacent to Hwy. 56 on the SE-17-40-20-W4. The subject parcel was created by subdivision in 2007, and at that time access to the parcel was from an approach directly off of Hwy. 56.

“A condition of subdivision was that the undeveloped road allowance for Twp Rd 40-2 be constructed to county standard and that access to the parcel was to be constructed off of that road allowance. By doing so, the front yard was now measured off of Twp Rd and not Hwy. 56, and now the buildings that were in compliance do not meet the required setbacks.

“The section of Twp Rd 40-2 that passes the subject property ends almost directly in front of the property. There are several wetlands to the west in the road allowance, so future construction would be difficult to do. The County of Stettler currently has no intentions to expand this section of road.”

Fitzgerald stated the application was sent to the rest of the County of Stettler’s departments and there were no concerns. It was noted at the meeting the region is zoned agriculture and does not lie in any intermunicipal development plan.

Fitzgerald explained setbacks are calculated using a formula but the MPC has the authority to issue a variance and permit the buildings to stay where they are if they, “…do not cause unreasonable hardship and would not unduly interfere with the amenities of the neighbourhood or materially interfere with or affect the use, enjoyment or value of adjacent parcel of land.”

“It is in the opinion of the development authority that the location of the dwelling and the ancillary building pose no issues with neighbouring lands and do not interfere with the use or enjoyment of any adjacent lands,” stated the planner in his report. He pointed out when the buildings were built they met the standards of the time.

Fitzgerald added that if the variance was granted, it would apply only to the existing buildings and if any additions, expansions or new structures were proposed a new development permit would be needed.

Board members unanimously approved the application for variance.

Stu Salkeld
Local Journalism Initiative reporter
ECA Review

About the author

ECA Review

Our newspaper is only as good as its contributors and we thank each one who submits stories, photos and opinions. If you have a news item, photos or opinion to share please submit it to office@ECAreview.com.