A development variance permit for an over-height carriage house in Wildwood has been rejected by City of Powell River Council.
At the July 13 council meeting, councillors heard a recommendation to relax the permitted accessory building height from 5.5 to 8.5 metres to facilitate a new construction carriage house at 6488 King Avenue. According to a staff report, the property is just over half an acre in size and contains a single-story principal dwelling. The plan was to build a carriage house above an over-height garage in the northeast corner of the rear yard, the report stated.
City deputy corporate officer Jessica Lefort said three pieces of correspondence regarding the variance had been received.
Director of planning services Jason Gow said there was a report from staff at a previous council meeting two weeks ago and staff was looking for direction to give notice, which has been given, for anyone who might have concerns about the variance, to express them before council makes a decision to issue the variance or not.
Neighbour Steve Orchiston, who lives two doors over from the property in question, said he wrote one of the pieces of correspondence that councillors had received.
“I have no reason to object to a carriage house, but in my mind, this isn’t a carriage house,” said Orchiston. “It’s a shop with a dwelling on top of it. I have a carriage house in the back of my property and it’s the reason why I bought it.”
Orchiston read from his letter to council and said the neighbours value their privacy afforded by the large lots, and many chose to buy there for that reason.
“This proposal is flawed right from its description and it should be a proposal for a shop with living quarters above,” said Orchiston. “Describing this as a carriage house is a veiled attempt to use the well-publicized lack of rentals to influence the issue of a variance.
“A carriage house doesn’t require 12-foot ceilings in the garage. It is insulting to suggest it has been designed to minimize any impacts or views on adjacent properties on the second-floor deck, which will be less than 30 feet from the property line. You’re basically looking down into other people’s properties.”
Orchiston said he was appearing before council to register his opposition.
The property owner, Kyle English, said he had not received any objection from neighbours. He said he had just heard that neighbours had written letters.
Councillor Jim Palm asked English why the carriage house was important to him. English said it is planned to be an affordable rental. He said by the deck, there are massive trees separating his neighbour’s yard, so he figured it has “tons of privacy.”
Councillor Rob Southcott said three letters of objection had been received, which suggests to him that more discussion needs to happen between the proponent and his neighbours.
“I am not comfortable with this much objection in the neighbourhood,” said Southcott. “I believe we need to work together and figure out the things we want to do with each other in our neighbourhoods. I do not support the motion.
Palm asked if this sort of precedent had been set previously. Gow said there was a carriage house on Lund Street with an over-height garage with a dwelling above. His recollection was that there was no objection from the community.
Councillor Trina Isakson said she did a drive by, and knowing the scale of the carriage house height, it is out of proportion in the neighbourhood.
“This sets a precedent that I don’t think this area is ready for,” said Isakson. “I am a huge proponent of affordable housing in this community, but it can’t be without any guardrails, so I’m concerned about this and won’t be voting for it.”
Acting mayor Cindy Elliott, who chaired the meeting, suggested postponing the matter to the next council meeting to give the proponent a chance to work with his neighbours and make suggested changes that would make everyone comfortable. Gow recommended council either issue or not issue the variance.
Mayor Ron Woznow, who attended the meeting via phone, asked about the cost of defeating the variance motion to the proponent, if the proponent brought back a modification. Gow said it would cost $500.
On the variance motion, Doubt voted in favour; others were opposed, so the motion was defeated.
