OLDS — Town council has approved an application by Olds resident Neil Godwin to build a temporary boat storage and repair building on his property at 4722 52nd St. in east Olds.
Godwin has told planning and development staff that he later plans to move the boat facility elsewhere.
Godwin’s proposed storage and repair facility is larger than the town normally allows, so he applied for variances. After some debate, council approved the application during a Jan. 13 meeting.
Plans call for the structure to be14.6 metres (48 feet) long by 6.5 metres (21.6 feet) wide, and 4.88 metres, roughly 16 feet high.
Also, accessory buildings on the parcel can now be 173.5 square metres. Normally, the maximum allowed is 110 square metres.
Godwin asked for a variance to side yard rules so he can attach the building to the eastern fence of the property, but expressed a willingness to comply if that wouldn’t be allowed.
Although the structure is supposed to be temporary, town staff admitted there is no way for them under current rules to ensure it remains that way.
Nine people stayed in the town council gallery until the application came up, filling many of the chairs available. Eight left after it was approved.
A report to council by development officer Nathan Hill noted that when all the variances requested are approved, “the subject parcel still complies with the maximum parcel coverage of 55 per cent in the R1 (low density) district.”
In his report, Hill recommended that the side yard setback variance not be granted, “because, while the applicant does own the adjacent property now, there is no means to guarantee that the applicant (will) not sell either property individually in the future.”
Plans call for the building to be clad with coloured reinforced polyethylene.
Hill’s report noted that a section of the East Olds Area Redevelopment Plan says accessory buildings “shall use the same façade treatment, finishing, materials, and colours as primary buildings.”
Nine landowners were notified of the application. One letter was received, expressing no concerns with the building, given that it’s supposed to be temporary.
However, that person also expressed concern with the fact there is no way to ensure it remains temporary.
Another email was also received, expressing no objections to the proposed building.
After his report was submitted, administrative staff received two more letters expressing no opposition to “an empty building,” Hill said.
“Given the size of the building, administration has concerns about attaching the building to a fence, especially as we don't have the power to make him remove it in the future,” Hill said during a presentation to council.
“As such administration has recommended refusal of that variance,” he said, adding that the applicant indicated he would be OK with that decision.
Coun. Darren Wilson said he was “conflicted” in regard to the application because on the one hand, the building is a variance of nearly 58 per cent from the maximum and he’s concerned about its overall size.
But on the other hand he said, there seemed to be little opposition from surrounding residents and overall, it will cover less than 55 per cent of the total property.
“My thought is that OK, it's going to be a temporary building. Why can it not be then within the side yard variance, as all other buildings,” Coun. Dan Daley asked.
“Because, as you had mentioned, we have no authority, or we have no way of determining that it is going to be a temporary building, and I would really like to see that that side variance be maintained.”
Daley also said council has “heard lots in the last few meetings about upholding the East Olds Redevelopment plan,” so he suggested the exterior should fit with the façade of other buildings on the property as per the plan.
Daley also expressed concern about the town’s inability to ensure the building is in fact temporary.
“I would really like to see this application go forward with those items in place for the residents of the nearby neighborhood there -- that this fits in with the peaceful development plan in those ways,” he said.
Coun. Heather Ryan echoed all those concerns.
“Temporary for some people could be a couple of months, and (for) some people could be a couple of years, and I don't want to see something sitting there for a couple of years, that's for sure,” she said.
Ryan also said the proposed increase in the total area of the building “seems very overwhelming to me.”
Coun. James Cummings wondered how the boat storage/repair facility differs from a poly car park or a tent, both of which, he noted can be defined as temporary.
“I think what differentiates this application is mostly on the size of the building,” Hill said. “It's a little bit outside of the scope that we usually see from a tent building, which is usually under 110 square feet.
“With this building being a large one and having most of the structural components of a building, that was our determination.”
Cummings then asked if council has the power to change its land use bylaw to stipulate a length of time that a temporary building can be in place.
“It seems to me, if it is a rule of the land use bylaw, we create the land use bylaw. We ought to be able to change the land use bylaw to address these issues moving forward,” he said.
Hill said it’s his understanding that yes, council can make that change in the land use bylaw.
“Yeah, that is a tool we can add in the future,” he said.
Coun. Harvey Walsh expressed confidence that the building will indeed be temporary. He noted that the applicant was in the gallery and had heard the concerns.
Walsh said he was glad to hear that the bylaw could be revised to in regard to temporary buildings.
