Board of Variance Minutes

Transcription

1 Board of Variance Minutes Council Chamber City Hall Avenue Surrey, B.C. TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 25, 2007 Time: 9:00 a.m. File: Present: Chairperson - M. Cooper S. Round A. Pease J. Sarwal Absent: G. Friend Staff Present: J. McKenzie Manager, Residential Section - Planning & Development L. Pitcairn Planner, North Surrey Division - Planning & Development L. Cesario Acting Secretary R. Epp Landscape Architect L. Thompson Arboricultural Technician A. TABLED APPEALS B. NEW APPEALS 1. Appeal No Sleva For permission to relax the east side yard setback requirement from 4.5 m to 1.8 m to allow construction of an addition to a house at Street. Richard Sleva was in attendance to discuss the appeal. Moved by J. Sarwal Seconded by S. Round That the following correspondence: 1. Letter from Rick and Tracy Sleva dated August 24, 2007; and 2. Letter of opposition from Hulda Roddan dated September 22, 2007; 3. Letter of opposition from Brad and Susan Henry dated September 24, 2007; and 4. Letter of opposition from D.W. Sokalski dated September 24, 2007, be received. The Manager, Residential Section, confirmed the following information: The lot is zoned Half Acre Residential Zone (RH). The lot is a through lot as defined in the Zoning By-law. Effectively this means that the lot has two front yards along Cedar Drive and along 25 Avenue. The property line along 124 Street is a flanking side yard. The minimum side yard setback in the RH Zone is 4.5 meters. The owner applied, but later withdrew an appeal to the Board of Variance in h:\bov\minutes\2007\min bov doc M 06/23/10 10:18 AM Page 1

2 The owner later re-applied and in February 2007, the Board of Variance approved a variance to the setback from the east property line, reducing it from 4.5 meters to 1.8 meters. The procedure at the time was correct with the exception that the setback was referred to as the rear yard when in fact it is a side yard. Notwithstanding this oversight, the City considers this variance valid. The owner has now submitted building permit plans that, in the City s opinion, vary substantially from those submitted in support of the Board of Variance appeal. The City considers that the change in plans is significant enough to require a new appeal. The size of the proposed addition has been increased, and interior renovations to the existing structure have also been proposed. The appellant should resolve all tree issues with respect to this appeal prior to the hearing. Following the February, 2007 hearing, neighbors contacted the City to express concerns with the notification practices for appeals. The Appellant advised: They were before the Board last year and were given approval to put an addition on their home. At that time they did not realize their architect had drawn up the plans incorrectly. They had their plans redone and submitted them to City Hall and were advised by the Building Division that they had to come back to the Board as the plans had changed. They have added approximately 400 square feet from the original approved plans. They did not maximize the allowable square footage, but allowed enough space to make their family comfortable. The new area consists of a two-car garage with living space above and bathrooms for their children. They enjoy the trees on the lot and have a tree-fort for their children. An arborist advised that one hazardous tree might have to be removed. As this tree is tied in with the root system of two other trees, the additional two trees may be compromised. The arborist will be on site when the work takes place and he will make a determination at that time if removal is necessary. not their intention to take all three trees down, but they do not want branches or trees falling on their home. They have trimmed some trees to allow light into the yard and to allow the grass to grow in the area where their children play. They do not want to take any trees down without permission from the City and they do not want to upset the neighborhood. h:\bov\minutes\2007\min bov doc Page 2

3 In response to questions from the Board, the Appellant added: The setbacks on this appeal are the same with the exception that they are requesting a variance to the side yard rather than the rear yard. When they added the square footage, they planned it within the requirements of the zone. They did not apply for a building permit following the last variance because they found errors in the architect plans. After speaking with a builder, they realized their plans were approximately 1,000 square feet less than the allowable maximum square footage. They have experienced financial hardship as a result of the change of plans. In response to questions from the Board, the Manager, Residential Section added: There was confusion due to the orientation of the house and this variance request is clearly a side yard. In terms of the current building proposal, the substance of the difference is the size of the proposed house. The meeting recessed at 9:26 a.m. to allow the Manager, Residential Section, to invite the relevant staff to join the meeting. The meeting reconvened at 9:33 a.m. with R. Epp, Landscape Architect and L. Thompson, Arboriculture Technician, joining the meeting. There was a sidebar to review the site and building plans. The Chair read allowed the previous appeal and added: There were no objections from the neighbors on the previous appeal. The Board cannot hear the same appeal twice. Since the previous appeal was for a rear yard and the current appeal is for a side yard, this meets the criteria regarding hearing the appeal. The Arboricultural Technician confirmed the following information: There are three trees fronting onto Cedar Drive that are quite close to the existing building to be removed and where the new addition is proposed. Two of those trees have been deemed hazardous. The third tree may be impaired by the removal of the two hazardous trees. There are two trees on the neighboring property to the east that could be impacted, however, with care and without over-excavation, removal is achievable. Regardless of whether the addition goes ahead, the trees in question have been deemed hazardous and the City would be obligated to issue a permit for their removal. In summary, the trees that may be impacted include two trees on adjacent property and three trees on the site in question. h:\bov\minutes\2007\min bov doc Page 3

4 In response to questions from the Board, the Arboricultural Technician added: Generally, the homeowner retains an arborist and the report is submitted to the City for approval. The City has insisted that a project arborist be on site if this project goes ahead. Jennifer Carrier of 2555 Cedar Drive was present and provided the following comments: Her and her husband live across the street from the appellant. They had their trees trimmed and topped in the last four years at a great expense. The first time this appeal came through they did not protest, as they did not believe any trees were at risk. The current plans are not clear and the City did not provide adequate information. The trees in question are two cedars and one fir. They would like to see these trees retained. When they moved there in 1976 the neighborhood was beautifully treed and now it is very suburban. If the trees come down, it will leave another gap and will potentially cause us some risk with winter and potential storms. They would like to consult with the City arborist in this regard. They do not object to the appellants building an addition, but would like the least amount of harm to the trees in the process. George Roddan of Avenue was present and provided the following comments: His mother Hulda Roddan lives next door to the appellant at 2534 Cedar Drive. He has an interest in this appeal as he has a legal option to purchase his mother s property. The setback requested is fairly tight and there are other options for building on the appellant's property. He would like to see the appellant's compromise by looking at the south side of their property for improvements. He does not have improvement plans for his mother's property at this time. The tight easement will impact on the nature and look of the entrance to the appellant's property. The Appellant added: The neighbor Ms. Roddan does not want her property disturbed. They will retain an arborist to be on site during excavation. They have lived at this home for 3.5 years and are trying to improve the home. h:\bov\minutes\2007\min bov doc Page 4

5 They plan on staying there until the kids are out of school. They currently have one bathroom for four people and want to give the children their own bathrooms. They have also added a larger laundry room to accommodate their family. There is currently a 20x20 shed sitting right on the property line. They are proposing to tear down this 50 year old shed and build something six feet away from the property line. BC Hydro took one tree down as it fell which resulted in a power outage. Their intention is not to destroy all the trees or impose on the neighbors. Building on the south side of their property is not feasible as this area of the yard is their forest. Moved by S. Round Seconded by J. Sarwal That Appeal No be allowed on the basis that a hardship exists in terms of the potential development of the site resulting from the unique configuration of the lot and further, that the project arborist and expert from the City of Surrey be involved through the process of development to minimize the number of trees impacted. the decision of the Board of Variance that the Appeal be allowed. R. Epp and L. Thompson left the meeting at 10:05 a.m. 2. Appeal No Ghatrora Holdings Ltd. For permission to Relax the General Provisions of Surrey Zoning By-law (E.15); the minimum width of a single family building from 7 metres to 6.65 metres to allow the construction of a single family dwelling at A Avenue. Mr. Parmjit Ghatrora was in attendance to discuss the appeal. Moved by J. Sarwal Seconded by S. Round That the following correspondence: 1. Letter from Parmjit Ghatrora dated August 30, 2007; 2. Letter from Parm Ghatrora addressed to Brawn, Karras & Sanderson regarding from CN Railway dated September 21, 2007; and 3. Letter of opposition from Kim Pedersen dated September 20, 2007, be received. The Manager, Residential Section, confirmed the following information: The lot under consideration is zoned One-Acre Residential Zone (RA). h:\bov\minutes\2007\min bov doc Page 5

6 The lot is 353 square meters. The lot was created by subdivision in The lot is located within an area designated as Urban in the Official Community Plan. Under these parameters, the siting and density provisions of the RF Zone become applicable. General provision Part 4 E 15 has been reproduced below: 15. Minimum Floor Area: Every single family dwelling shall contain not less than 84 square meters [900 sq.ft.] of floor area on the ground floor thereof and the width of the building shall be not less than 7 meters [24 ft.]. Notwithstanding the foregoing, single family dwellings in the RF-9, RF-9C, RF-12, RF-12C and RF-SD Zones are excluded from this requirement. This provision was originally adopted prior to the creation of the various small lot zones currently included in the Zoning By-law. As evidenced by the exclusion clause for these small lot zones, the provision is generally considered inappropriate on small lots. The CN railway restrictive covenant on the title of the subject lot has been resolved to the City's satisfaction. The Appellant advised: He started the process for the design in February with an Engineer and the City. Each change has resulted in time and financial costs incurred up to$20,000 plus interest on their mortgage, and legal fees. The City Planner requested soil tests that were also very costly. This last request came at the last stage of the permit process and caused additional hardship. In response to questions from the Board, the Planner confirmed the following: There are no restrictions in the Charter, Local Government Act or Zoning Bylaw that deems the lot is not build able or prohibited. Some of the historic lots do not fit the current day bylaws. Members of the Board added: The proposed building is not unbuildable from a practical or building point of view. The appellant is making every effort to meet the by-law requirements. h:\bov\minutes\2007\min bov doc Page 6

7 There were no neighbours present to speak to this appeal. Moved by S. Round Seconded by J. Sarwal That Appeal No be allowed on the basis that the lot was created by subdivision which generated the situation that the development would occur and this created a hardship by virtue of the existing requirements of the by-law. the decision of the Board of Variance that the Appeal be allowed. 3. Appeal No Rolston For permission to relax the west side yard setback requirement from 4.5 m to 1.8 m; and relax the east side yard setback requirement from 4.5 m to 1.8 m to bring the principal dwelling into conformity and to allow construction of the enclosure of a car port at Avenue. A. Louise Rolston was in attendance to discuss the appeal. Moved by J. Sarwal Seconded by S. Round That the following correspondence: 1. Letter from A. Louise Rolston dated August 24, 2007; 2. Letter of support from Parm and Amy Bopari of Avenue, dated August 15, 2007; 3. Letter of support from Norman and Pat McKenzie of Avenue dated August 18, 2007; 4. Letter of support from Tom and Diane Dent of Avenue, dated August 15, 2007; 5. Letter of support from Waldemar and Susan Widera of Avenue dated August 15, 2007; 6. Letter of support from Brad and Marcia Morris of Avenue dated August 15, 2007; and 7. Letter of support from Karen Davids of Avenue dated August 15, 2007, be received. The Manager, Residential Section, confirmed the following information: The lot is zoned Half Acre Residential Zone (RH). The minimum side yard setback is 4.5 meters. In 1991, By-law changed the minimum side yard setback in the Suburban Residential Zone (RS) from 1.8 meters to 4.5 meters. This resulted in the dwelling under consideration having legally non-conforming side yards. h:\bov\minutes\2007\min bov doc Page 7

8 The Appellant advised: Her hardship is essentially a matter of the security of her home. She was surprised that there was an anomaly regarding the setback issues. To bring the house into conformity, she would lose half of most of the rooms. The brick walls in the carport exist to a certain height and need to be enclosed. She will feel much safer in her home if this variance is allowed. There were no neighbours present to speak to this appeal. Moved by A. Pease Seconded by S. Round That Appeal No be allowed. the decision of the Board of Variance that the Appeal be allowed. 4. Appeal No Wiebe For permission to relax the front yard setback requirement from 18 m to 1.8 m to allow the retention and rotation of a storage garage at A Avenue. Mr. Byron Wiebe and Mr. Gary Raymond, Agent for the Appellant, were in attendance to discuss the appeal. Moved by J. Sarwal Seconded by A. Pease That the following correspondence: 1. Letter of authorization dated September 11,2007; 2. Letter of authorization dated August 24, 2007; 3. Letter from Byron and Frances Wiebe dated September 17, 2007; 4. Letter from Frances Wiebe dated April 24, 2007; 5. Letter from Byron and Frances Wiebe dated June 20, 2006; 6. Letter of with opposition with seven (7) signatures dated September 13, 2007; 7. Letter of support from Cheryl Bucholtz, previous owner of A Street dated April 25, 2005; and 8. Letter of support from Doug and Monica Nelson of A Street dated May 7, 2005, be received. The Manager, Residential Section, confirmed the following information: The lot is located within the Single Family Residential Zone (RF). As the lot abuts two approximately parallel roads, the lot is considered to be a through lot and therefore both the north and south property lines are h:\bov\minutes\2007\min bov doc Page 8

9 considered to be front lot lines. The east property line is considered to be a flanking side lot line. Only a portion of the south property line fronts the road. A thin wedge of the neighbor s lot at A Street extends across the south property line of the subject lot. The access to the garage across this thin wedge of land would require an easement. The garage structure is already built, but the Building Division is unable to issue a building permit for the structure without the aforementioned access easement. We understand that the owner has been unable to obtain the easement and accordingly is now proposing to lift and rotate the existing building in order to orient the door / driveway to the east. The alternate driveway location may conflict with a tree on the lot. The agent for the proponent advises that he will address this prior to the hearing. The agent also will provide a revised site plan showing the proposed access and the location/ size / species of the tree. The other accessory building on the lot (a shed) is also shown differently than it appears in aerial photo of the lot. This will be assessed at the time of our site visit. The Appellant advised: The lot is classified as having two front yards. Therefore the setbacks make it impossible to put a building in what we refer to as the backyard. Where the garage is proposed will fall in line with a normal side yard lot. They are not going to use the building as a home based garage. They own a separate building and bay and do not have the need to do repairs at their residence. They have been into hotrod vehicles for years and plan to use the garage to store a vintage truck. Due to theft in the area, they are concerned with leaving a car in the driveway. Their property has the school on one side and a ball park on the other. There are numerous large trees at the park where kids congregate and/or drink alcohol. The fence has been kicked in several times and most recently five panels were kicked in. The police patrol on a regular basis and have made some progress this past summer. They have reported the incidences to the police, but their efforts have become futile. In response to questions from the Board, the Manager, Residential Section, confirmed the following information: h:\bov\minutes\2007\min bov doc Page 9

10 Mr. Brad Fisher of the City of Surrey Engineering Department had accepted driveway location 3 as feasible. There were no neighbours present to speak to this appeal. Moved by S. Round Seconded by J. Sarwal That Appeal No be allowed on the basis that a hardship exists as there are two front yards and further, the practical use of the building in its present form is impacted by the portion of land that would require an easement to access this building. the decision of the Board of Variance that the Appeal be allowed. The meeting recessed at 10:59 a.m. and reconvened at 11:20 a.m. with the same members in attendance. C. MOTION TO HOLD A MEETING IN A CLOSED SESSION It is an order for the Board of Variance to pass a resolution to close the meeting to the public pursuant to Section 90 (1) (i) of the Community Charter. Moved by S. Round Seconded by J. Sarwal That the Board of Variance close the meeting to the public pursuant to Section 90 (1) (i) of the Community Charter. The meeting reconvened at 12:27 p.m. with the same members in attendance. D. ADOPTION OF MINUTES The minutes of the Board of Variance meeting held on August 28, 2007 to be adopted. Moved by S. Round Seconded by J. Sarwal That the minutes of the Board of Variance meeting of August 28, 2007 be approved as circulated. h:\bov\minutes\2007\min bov doc Page 10

11 E. OTHER COMPETENT BUSINESS 1. The notification letter to be approved by the Board and initialed by the Chair. F. NEXT MEETING The next meeting of the Board of Variance will be held on Thursday, October 18, 2007 at 9:00 a.m. G. ADJOURNMENT The Board of Variance meeting adjourned at 12:30 p.m. Margaret Jones, City Clerk Marie Cooper - Chairperson h:\bov\minutes\2007\min bov doc Page 11