A Kitimat couple’s plan to build a protective fence and greenhouse has highlighted tensions between rigid zoning language and everyday practicality, prompting calls from councillors to rethink how such bylaws are applied.
“Corner lots such as this with a curved front-lot line is treated as a front yard. But in reality, the area in question is an area that feels like a side yard,” said the director of planning, pointing to the unusual lot shape at 59 Currie St. that has forced the homeowners to seek a rezoning variance.
The property’s curved corner designation means both the front and side of the house fall under the municipality’s definition of a front yard. As a result, the 1.8-metre (six-foot) fence requested to shield the proposed greenhouse from street view must first receive a zoning amendment—even though similar fences are common throughout the community.
Councillor Graham Pitzel voiced minor safety concerns about sightlines, noting, “Six feet might limit vision.” Councillor Terry Marleau echoed the concern but supported moving the proposal forward, saying that while six-foot fences are not unusual, “the nature of the property poses challenges.” He said he looked forward to hearing feedback from neighbours.
The applicants, Ron Miller and Jenn Cranna, submitted a letter to council explaining their intentions: to construct a modest greenhouse and cedar-and-metal privacy fence to match their home. They noted the fence would help shield the greenhouse from snow-removal debris and offer “a small amount of privacy that the property does not offer now," but which most other homes on the street enjoy.
Inside the fence, the couple plans to construct an L-shaped greenhouse without a permanent foundation. They say it would enhance both the usability and appearance of the property. “The greenhouse will provide Jenn with a multi-month exterior shelter for her to enjoy her personal relaxing diversion,” they wrote, adding that local contractors would perform the work.
Some members of council questioned why such requests must undergo lengthy deliberations when similar amendments are routinely approved. Councillor Gerry Leibel asked, “Should we not just do away with the limit? Why is that 1.2 figure there? Why have it if we just keep amending it?”
Planning staff responded that the 1.2-metre height is the maximum currently applied to fences in front yards under the municipal code. If enough similar requests arise, staff may bring forward a proposal to council for a broader bylaw amendment.
Leibel called the process inefficient and suggested a more proactive role for staff. “I would gladly relinquish the decision making if Planning is onboard with a variation,” he said.
His comments align with a recent consultant’s recommendation that staff take on more responsibility in handling routine variance requests. Council received the Development Approvals Process Review report on June 9 and approved its implementation plan. Funded by a grant from the Union of BC Municipalities, the report outlines ways to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the District of Kitimat’s approvals process.
Council unanimously approved the motion to proceed with processing the Development Variance Permit. The application will next be referred to the Advisory Planning Commission for further input.
