Big Valley council turned down a resident’s development permit application for an addition to a home, citing aesthetics and tight setbacks. The decision was made at the July 13 regular meeting of council.
Village Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) Elaine McDonald presented councillors with a resident’s application for a development permit for an addition to their home, which also included a request for a variance as the application didn’t meet requirements of the Land Use Bylaw (LUB).
“A development permit application was received by administration for a small addition to a house to provide some separation between the house and the outdoors in the winter,” stated McDonald in her agenda memo, who noted during discussion the addition would be built in the front yard, facing the street. The applicant told her a lot of cold air comes through that side of the house in winter.
“The LUB requires a 26.24 foot front yard setback and this addition will not meet that requirement. There is currently 17 feet 3 inches from the house to the property line and the addition will decrease that setback to 9 feet 3 inches.”
During her presentation, McDonald pointed out the house in question was built before the existing LUB rules came into play and since it already doesn’t match the current LUB, it’s considered a “non-conforming” property to begin with.
The CAO stated the provincial government typically encourages councils to avoid changes to non-conforming properties, but rather leave them the way they are. However, she pointed out under the Municipal Government Act (MGA) Big Valley council has the authority to grant the development permit with the variance.
McDonald further noted no basement would be placed under the addition. She also pointed out councillors have the authority to place conditions on the development permit, including conditions that address aesthetics.
No maps or illustrations of the application were presented at the meeting.
Coun. Clark German stated that without more information he couldn’t make a decision on this application.
After councillors chatted a bit about the application, they decided to pause the meeting and travel down the street to actually look at the property in question as it stands.
German stated the Village of Big Valley perhaps has too many examples of “eye sores” already and he always kept in mind the issue of a precedent, where if councillors granted one resident a variance the decision may encourage other residents to ask for the same variance.
After about 10 minutes the councillors returned and continued the council meeting. It was clear after seeing the property in question councillors would not approve the addition.
Mayor Dan Houle said, “Upon further review, I think we’re going to have to say ‘nay.’”
Coun. Amber Hoogenberg added, “…just too close to the road.”
A motion to approve the development permit application with a variance was unanimously defeated.
Stu Salkeld
Local Journalism Initiative reporter
ECA Review
