Colwood council approved a development variance for a retaining wall despite it being built higher than the CityB次元官网网址檚 bylaws allow and without a permit.

An application for a single-lot development on Pelican Drive was submitted on Aug. 17 of last year, after the City . The amended bylaws call for a limit of 1.2 metres in height unless terraced. In the latter case, the height of each section cannot exceed 1.2 metres and the structure must be as wide as it is tall.

The Pelican Drive application included drawings of the proposal which didnB次元官网网址檛 show a retaining wall, but a wall in excess of four metres was built anyways, prompting the propertyB次元官网网址檚 owner to request a retroactive development variance.

Council granted the variance, going against a recommendation from staff, on the condition that aesthetic, landscaping and engineering improvements be made.

A staff report outlined a number of concerns, including the wallB次元官网网址檚 potential impact on underground utilities or services on the adjacent City-owned right-of-way, the lack of a formal landscaping plan to improve aesthetics, and the fact that the wall doesnB次元官网网址檛 fall within ColwoodB次元官网网址檚 Official Community Plan.

In a letter to the City, Dylan Quigley outlined that he needed the wall, which borders a public pathway, in order to facilitate a parking spot for a suite and to accommodate access for his electrical and gas services.

B次元官网网址淚 have realised that I have violated your laws regarding retaining walls and am looking to make things as nice as possible to comply and also because this is the home I plan on raising my family in,B次元官网网址� he wrote, also detailing that he will plant cedar hedges along the wall and honeysuckle or ivy plants to climb it.

The proposal didnB次元官网网址檛 sit well with Coun. Cynthia Day, who, along with Coun. Jason Naultone, voted against the variance.

B次元官网网址淚t encroaches right to the lot line so thereB次元官网网址檚 not really enough room to put cladding on the wall without it further encroaching into the right of way. And it was built knowingly and without any inspections or permits,B次元官网网址� she told the Gazette.

Day also expressed concern over the aesthetics of the wall given its position next to the public path, and the precedent the decision may set for future developments.

B次元官网网址淚B次元官网网址檓 concerned that it weakens our position with future proposals coming forward,B次元官网网址� she noted.

Coun. Gordie Logan voted in favour of the variance, although he admitted it was a difficult decision and that the planning and land use committee and council were put in a tough position as a result of the ownerB次元官网网址檚 error.

B次元官网网址淔rom my perspective, we were looking for a bit of a middle ground and looking for a solution that both parties could live with. The City identified a few items that needed to be addressed, that being the aesthetics, the landscaping and the engineering of the wall,B次元官网网址� he said.

Logan added that a couple of members of committee agreed that if the correct process had been followed by the applicant, the wall would have likely been approved.

B次元官网网址淲ith that lens, we wanted to look for solutions as opposed to coming down with a heavy hand and see if we could make it work for both parties,B次元官网网址� he said.

He added that any future variance requests would have to continue to be looked at on a case-by-case basis.

B次元官网网址淚 think we would need to evaluate the circumstance and ask ourselves if it impacts anybody. Does it have any effect on City rights-of-ways? Is it going to put some liability onto the City and the taxpayer? I think we evaluate each decision as it comes up.B次元官网网址�

joel.tansey@goldstreamgazette.com