Croft Road dispute far from over

Once the mistake was identified and neighbouring residents raised concerns, city staff recommended the developer apply for a development variance permit that would allow the reduced setback despite not meeting zoning regulations.

That recommendation eventually landed before city council, where councillors wrestled with competing concerns surrounding fairness, accountability and neighbourhood impacts.

Residents who live near the proposed development argued that approving the variance would permanently affect privacy and undermine the city’s own bylaws. Others at council noted the developer had relied on a permit that had already been approved by the city and could face significant costs as a result of a mistake they did not make.

Among those speaking out against the variance was neighbour Mike Godfrey, who said the project has dramatically altered the character of the area around his home.

“The original design, he got shot down for the deck. Originally, he was going to have it so close he could have walked out to the corner and poured his coffee right across my fence into my backyard. I mean privacy. It’s gone. I don’t have any.”

Godfrey’s concerns echoed those raised by several neighbours who submitted letters or appeared before council. Residents argued the deck’s location would significantly reduce privacy and place the burden of the city’s mistake on people who followed the rules.

Council debated whether there was a path forward that could accommodate both the property owner and neighbouring residents. Some councillors suggested the city had an obligation to address an error made by staff, while others emphasized that approving such a significant setback reduction would be unfair to surrounding homeowners.

Before council voted on the variance itself, a motion was introduced to postpone the decision and gather additional information, including potential legal advice. That motion failed, sending councillors directly to a vote on the variance application.

With Councillor Trudy Klassen absent from the meeting, the final vote ended in a 4-4 tie.

Councillors Cori Ramsay, Ron Polillo, Brian Skakun and Garth Frizzell voted in favour of issuing the variance permit.

Councillors Susan Scott, Tim Bennett, Kyle Sampson and A building permit issued in error by the City of Prince George has left a Hart neighbourhood development in limbo, sparked frustration among nearby residents and put council in the difficult position of deciding who should bear the consequences of a mistake that never should have happened.

The dispute centres on a home under construction at 2239 Croft Road. The property owner received a building permit from the city in 2023 and construction proceeded to the point where a foundation was poured. But city staff later discovered they had incorrectly interpreted setback requirements during the approval process.

Under the property’s RS1 zoning, structures are required to be six metres from the rear property line. The proposed rear deck, however, would sit just 1.17 metres from that boundary.

That recommendation eventually landed before city council, where councillors wrestled with competing concerns surrounding fairness, accountability and neighbourhood impacts.

Among those speaking out against the variance was neighbour Mike Godfrey, who said the project has dramatically altered the character of the area around his home.

With Councillor Trudy Klassen absent from the meeting, the final vote ended in a 4-4 tie.

Councillors Cori Ramsay, Ron Polillo, Brian Skakun and Garth Frizzell voted in favour of issuing the variance permit.

Councillors Susan Scott, Tim Bennett, Kyle Sampson and Mayor Yu voted against it.

Because a tie vote results in a motion being defeated, the variance application failed, leaving the project in limbo and administration tasked with determining possible next steps.

For neighbour Darrell Orosz, the issue comes down to enforcing the city’s existing rules.

“Rules are rules and everyone understands. If it was a foot error, no one would even know that. But not five meters it’s just unacceptable.”

Orosz was among several residents who told council they believe approving the variance would create a troubling precedent for future developments across the city.

While neighbours welcomed council’s decision to reject the variance, uncertainty remains about how the matter will ultimately be resolved.

Godfrey believes responsibility should not rest with nearby homeowners.

“To be honest with you, I think that the city made a mistake and they’ve already told me as much. I think that the city bears responsibility as well as the property owner is building the house. He’s built many houses in Prince George before and he knows full well what the setbacks are supposed to be.”

The city has indicated it will continue reviewing the situation and report back to council as necessary. In the meantime, construction remains stalled while both residents and the property owner await further direction.

Neighbours say they will continue following the issue closely and intend to remain involved as council revisits the matter.

“I would hope they stand by their convictions and reject it again, and then tell city staff enough is enough,” said Orosz.

The issue is expected to return before council during a Council Consideration of Development Variance Permit Application meeting on September 9th, where councillors will once again be asked to weigh the consequences of the city’s error against the concerns of residents living nearby.

For now, a permit approved in error continues to create uncertainty for everyone involved, leaving council with the challenging task of finding a solution that balances accountability, fairness and the interests of both neighbours and the property owner. voted against it.

Because a tie vote results in a motion being defeated, the variance application failed, leaving the project in limbo and administration tasked with determining possible next steps.

For neighbour Darrell Orosz, the issue comes down to enforcing the city’s existing rules.

“Rules are rules and everyone understands. If it was a foot error, no one would even know that but not five meters. It’s just unacceptable.”

Orosz was among several residents who told council they believe approving the variance would create a troubling precedent for future developments across the city.

While neighbours welcomed council’s decision to reject the variance, uncertainty remains about how the matter will ultimately be resolved.

Godfrey believes responsibility should not rest with nearby homeowners.

“The city made a mistake they’ve already told me as much. I think that the city bears responsibility as well as the property owner who is building the house. He’s built many houses in Prince George before and he knows full well what the setbacks are supposed to be.”

Neighbours say they will continue following the issue closely and intend to remain involved as council revisits the matter.

“I would hope they stand by their convictions and reject it again, and then tell city staff enough is enough,” said Orosz.

by Nick Dube

Croft Road dispute far from over

What's Trending