The Saskatoon development appeals board has upheld regulations regarding a house in the Nutana neighborhood that exceeds height and width limits. The board’s decision, issued recently, stated that relaxing the standards for the house would go against the zoning bylaw’s purpose.
Situated on University Drive, the three-story residence, valued at $1.6 million, surpasses the maximum height permitted for homes in established neighborhoods by 1.4 meters and is wider than allowed. These violations were identified during an inspection when the house was nearly finished in May, prompting the city to issue a stop work order.
After purchasing the property from developer Karl Miller’s estate a year ago, Curtis and Rachelle Kelln, the current owners, claimed they were unaware of the size limits breach. City staff, who had conducted multiple inspections during the construction phase, were also unaware of the violation until it was flagged.
Jonathan Naylor, president of the Varsity View Community Association neighboring Nutana, expressed understanding for the owners’ predicament but supported the board’s decision to uphold regulations preventing excessively large houses. He highlighted concerns about the impact such structures can have on neighboring properties and green spaces.
Despite being pleased with the outcome, Naylor raised questions about how the oversight occurred, emphasizing the need for stricter monitoring. Douglas Tompson, a resident near the property, echoed Naylor’s sentiments and expressed sympathy for the Kellns, whom he deemed blameless in the situation.
Speculation abounds that the issue may escalate to the courts given its complexity. The Kellns have the option to appeal the appeals board’s ruling to the Saskatchewan Municipal Board within the next month. The couple refrained from commenting on the matter, stating they are deliberating on their next course of action. An affidavit submitted by Curtis Kelln outlined the challenges of altering the house to comply with regulations, indicating significant additional costs and structural modifications would be required.
The fate of the property remains uncertain as discussions continue amidst the regulatory and legal complexities surrounding the case.