Search This Site

2014-09-16_PH Banks Variance Appeal

MUNICIPALITY OF THE COUNTY OF ANNAPOLIS

MICHAEL BANKS VARIANCE REFUSAL APPEAL

PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA

 

Council Chambers, Municipal Administration Building, Annapolis Royal

11:00 A.M., September 16, 2014

 

  1. - Warden Reginald Ritchie

Section 236 (4) of the Municipal Government Act provides that where an application for a variance of the normal yard requirements of a land use by-law is refused by the Development Officer, an applicant may appeal this decision to Municipal Council.

Format: This is a one issue hearing. At the end of the hearing Council will return its Regular Session of Council where Council shall then make its decision on the variance application.

 

  1. Presentation by Planner

Variance Application Specifics – An application was received August 26, 2014 from Michael Banks, the registered property owner of 9258 Highway 201, South Farmington, seeking to reduce the 24.9 foot required rear yard applicable to his property to permit the continuation of the construction of a storage addition to an existing motor vehicle repair facility building.

Background – Mr. Banks commenced construction of the storage addition to his existing motor vehicle repair facility building without permits. A verbal stop work was ordered by the Chief Building Official followed up by a written stop work order. Mr. Banks subsequently applied for a development/building permit. That permit, for the storage addition to the existing motor vehicle repair facility structure, was considered incomplete by the Development Officer based a rear yard discrepancy. Our records suggested 18 feet and the permit stated 20 feet. The Development Officer requested the applicant engage a Nova Scotia Land Surveyor to confirm the rear yard setback. However, according to the Annapolis County East End Area Land Use By-law Part 13.2, the addition is required to be located 7.6 metres (24.9 feet) from the rear property boundary. The variance request is for 2.5 metres (8.2 feet) less than the required rear yard setback. Thus the storage addition could potentially be located with 5.0 metres (16.4 feet) from the rear property boundary.

Decision - The Development Officer rejected the variance application on the grounds that a variance must be granted before a municipal development permit is issued. Given the construction of Mr. Bank’s storage addition was started before a municipal development permit was issued and in that location that is contrary to the ordinary rear yard setback requirements for the Rural (R-5) Zone, it is the opinion of the Development Officer that Mr. Bank’s actions amounts to a violation of the requirements of the Annapolis County East End Area Land Use By-law. Specifically, Section 235 (3) (c) of the Municipal Government Act states that a variance may not be granted where the difficulty experienced results from an intentional disregard for the requirements of the land use by-law.

Appeal - Mr. Banks has made an application to appeal the decision of the Development Officer to Municipal Council on August 26, 2014. His application for a variance was officially refused by the Development Officer in a letter dated August 26, 2014. This letter set out the right to appeal to Council. Specifically the application for a variance was refused by the Development Officer on the grounds that Section 235 (3) (c) of the Municipal Government Act states that a variance may not be granted where the difficulty experienced results from an intentional disregard for the requirements of the land use by-law. In accordance with MGA due process – adjacent property owners were notified of the appeal hearing by regular mail August 27, 2014.

  1. Applicant Remarks – appeal considerations
  1. Call for Oral Presentations – adjacent property owners
  1. Call for Reading of Written Adjacent Property Owners Submissions
  1. Council Member’s Discussion – decision to be made following hearing

 

TOP