City staff are recommending council bring down the hammer on a brand-new Hillcrest garage and potential garden suite which was built too close to the property lines.

Administration is recommending that the request to rezone the lot so the new two-storey structure can be legalized should be denied.

Denying the rezoning application would likely mean a significant cost to the owners of the building, which does not comply with proper setbacks, city planning manager Mike Gau told members of council at their meeting Monday night.

Gau said approving the application could paint city hall as a bit of a softy when it comes to enforcing rules and regulations.

"There was the concern that approving a rezoning application for a non-conforming structure would set a precedent for future applications,” reads the administrative report presented by Gau.

"It was also mentioned that approval of this application would send a message to other residents that circumvention of zoning regulations is possible.”

Five of six council members present for the March 26 meeting approved first reading of the bylaw required for the zoning amendment.

Council typically approves first reading as standard practice to allow for public debate and input.

Coun. Betty Irwin was the only member to reject the application at first reading, suggesting the property owners didn't follow the rules – period.

And while Mayor Bev Buckway was away for that meeting, when the matter first hit council's agenda earlier this year, she indicated at some point council has to send a message of intolerance.

Administration is recommending city council reject the request at second reading scheduled for next Monday.

Council has been told property owners James Stuart and Diane Williams obtained the building permit in August 2008.

They did not, however, call for the mandatory site inspection before pouring the concrete slab to make sure the building was properly situated far enough away from the rear and side property lines.

When the first building inspection was conducted in March 2009, the slab with infloor heating had been poured and the framing was complete, without the city having ever been contacted for an inspection.

The improper location of the building was not noted at the time, council has been told.

The city took notice in April 2011 when the owners applied for a plumbing permit as they began to entertain uses other than a garage and second-storey storage area.

Building staff denied the plumbing permit and requested a surveyor's certificate. A stop-work order was issued in November 2011.

Williams appeared before council March 26 to say she and Stuart did everything to make sure things were done right.

They did have an issue with the original contractor early in the project and he was eventually fired, she said.

Williams noted the non-compliance amounts to 15 centimetres (six inches) short of the required 1.5-metre setback on the side, and 45 centimetres (18 inches) on the rear.

It's not as though the building is sitting in the neighbour's yard, she told council in late March.

Williams said having to move the building, which is already clad to weather, would be a real hardship.

When asked last night, the city planning manager said most building contractors know a site inspection is required before footings or slabs are poured.

Ultimately, however, the responsibility to ensure rules and regulations are followed, to ensure inspections are called when required, is up to the property owner, Gau said.

He said inspection requirements are made clear when building permits are issued.

In an interview afterward, Gau explained that because the lot at 34 Roundel is not cut out at 90-degree angles, as most city lots are, only a corner of the building does not comply with the setbacks, and not the entire side and rear walls.