A more than year-long neighbourhood battle over what a man called a "bright red" and "massive garage" has come to a close, after a judge dismissed the man's application for a judicial review of a city decision that allowed his neighbours to keep the structure.

"The essence of the applicant's challenge is that the garage structure is too large and does not meet any of the legislative criteria," said Court of King's Bench Judge Gerald Chartier in a written decision.

"It is true that the garage structure is very large, however, the basis for the City's decision to grant the variance and allow the structure to remain in place is discernable and reasonable," Chartier said.

Darren Van Wynsberghe applied for a judicial review after a successful appeal that allowed the oversized garage to continue standing was previously made to the city's appeal committee by Van Wynsberghe's next door neighbour, Tylan Unruh.

A judicial review refers to a superior court's ability to review decisions from an administrative decision-maker and determine if the decision was reasonable or correct.

The judge dismissed Van Wynsberghe's application without costs on Dec. 18, 2024.

Chartier said the appeal committee's decision to allow the two-storey, 4,900-square-foot garage to remain in the city's semi-rural Charleswood neighbourhood was reasonable and considered city criteria for approving building under variance bylaws.

Van Wynsberghe launched the original complaint about the garage's size to the city in 2023.

Following the complaint, the City of Winnipeg issued a notice of violation to Unruh, informing him his garage was in violation of the city bylaws, and required him to obtain a permit for construction of the garage and a zoning variance to allow for the building's size.

Unruh filed a development permit mid-January 2024 but was ultimately rejected by the city's public service on Feb. 28 when it found the garage's size to be bigger than allowed.

In May, after kicking the decision up to the city's appeal committee, Unruh's appeal was successful under the condition he hire an arborist to decide how best to screen the garage by planting trees, to help hide the north side from view.

The appeals committee also decided the garage had already been built and denying the appeal would mean the owner would have to remove or reduce it.

Criteria for approving building variances under the city's charter mean a building must be consistent with city development, not create adverse effects on the adjoining property or area, is the minimum modification of a zoning by-law required to relieve injurious effect, and is compatible with the area the property is situated in.

Chartier said in his decision there wasn't evidence to indicate the garage was outside of city development plans, and that the appeals committee sought to address adverse effects on the adjoining property by ordering trees to be planted to screen the structure.

The appeal committee made its decision based on previous decisions that had involved already-built structures in the area and decided the garage was compatible with the culture of the neighbourhood based on the size of the lot and lifestyles of the residents in the area, said Chartier.

"The appeal committee accepted that that use in this instance included a structure of that size was required for storing large trailers, a motorhome, ATVs and other vehicles and equipment," said Chartier.

"I disagree with the applicant [Van Wynsberghe] and what is contained the City's administrative report prepared for the hearing that the variance should be rejected because the owners could have built a smaller garage."

An administrative report made by the city's planning, property and development department in preparation for Unruh's appeal hearing recommended rejection of the variance, partly because construction of the garage occurred without a development permit.

"Regarding the building of the garage without a permit, the appeal committee dealt with that issue in their reasons, and their reasons on this issue were reasonable."