Drainage concerns cited in variance request denial

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 01/01/2024 (443 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

A request for a variance to allow an accessory building closer to the property line than city regulations allow was defeated by council who pointed to drainage concerns, the danger of setting precedent and the large size of the property.

The application made by Kristan Loeppky for a property at 317 Highway 52 West owned by Ron Loeppky, asked to reduce the side-yard setback requirement from 15 feet to four feet.

City manager Troy Warkentin expressed concerns with the proposal, which attracted no opposition from neighbours.

“Administration has concerns with future potential drainage limitations affecting both properties if a reduced side yard setback is approved,” he wrote in a report to council. “The property in question is four acres in size. There is ample space to add an accessory building on the property and keep within the required setbacks.”

The report also noted that the property currently contains eight accessory structures in addition to the principal residence.

Coun. Jake Hiebert agreed, making the motion to deny the variance.

“To me that’s more than a variance,” he said of the nine extra feet requested.

He also expressed concerns as to future drainage issues as the neighbouring property is not developed at this time.

“The fact that the adjoining property is undeveloped doesn’t mean that now or in the future it won’t be adversely effected,” he said, adding they don’t have a drainage plan on file for that property.

Coun. Jac Siemens seconded the motion and said in addition to potential drainage issues there’s the concern of the precedent this could create.

“We take each of these requests on their own, but we might have pressure then because we have some sort of a precedent,” he said. “What effect does this have down the road on future development?”

Council voted to deny the variance with the exception of Coun. Bill Hiebert.

Hiebert did not explain his stance to council, but simply lifted his hand to vote against the motion to deny the variance.