Board of Variance Minutes

Transcription

1 Board of Variance Minutes Council Chamber City Hall Avenue Surrey, B.C. THURSDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2005 Time: 9:00 a.m. Present: Chairperson - M. Cooper G. Friend J. Gorman S. Round E. Vantol Absent: Staff Present: J. McKenzie Manager, Residential Section - Planning & Development M. Dickinson Planning Technician, Area Planning & Development Division - Planning & Development C. Bonneville Secretary A. TABLED APPEALS 1. Appeal No Balaj For permission to relax the total area paved for a driveway within the front yard from 33% to 43% to allow construction of a driveway and sidewalk; and relax the front yard setback requirement from 7.5 m to 5.5 m to allow construction of a renovation/addition; to the single family dwelling at Street. Ms. Rodica Balaj, the Appellant, was in attendance to discuss the appeal. Moved by E. Vantol That letter of opposition from, Ms. Jean Work or Street, be received. The Manager, Residential Section, confirmed the following information: There is a document on table for the Board s review outlining the history, current situation and the future situation of the subject property. The application for a building permit has been before the building division since February Building Division has reviewed numerous proposals and we are still not in the position to grant a building permit. A foundation was poured in April 2005 and the house was raised on cribbing 3 metres from grade. City Council directed the owner to obtain a building permit and that was not achieved. Council then ordered that the house be lowered and the City hired a contractor to lower the house. There are minor code and by-law issues, however the biggest impediment is the garage at basement level. The front yard is abbreviated and the road is a major collector road and one of the busiest roads in the City. The Engineering Department has serious concerns regarding the ingress and egress from the driveway to the collector road. The future holds a road widening which would require expropriation of property and make the situation impossible. h:\bov\minutes\2005\min bov doc seh 07/05/10 13:47 PM Page 1

2 The Appellant advised: That she is a single mom of four adopted teenagers. The current house has 3 bedrooms and 1 bathroom, and the plans for the new house will allow one bedroom for each person and more bathrooms. The plans for the new construction were started in December, however there is no sympathy for working people. Had attended City Hall six times before the plans were even looked at. After a meeting with staff a list of outstanding issues was to be provided, this listing was provided three weeks later; at that point the contractor was lost. Applied for a building permit, and none of the paperwork provided stated at what stage could things be done. I was provided with one sheet showing the plan of the garage and that was supposed to be the guide to making the plans. I thought I could prepare work for the first inspection and the forms were constructed. No one told me that I could not live in the house based on that information I lived in the house. We addressed five problems provided from a different plan checker as to what needed to be resolved and why. A building permit was promised on April 8. The storm sewer pipe issue could not be resolved, this is the City pipe and we dug out to the connection and the connection was not deep enough and the permit was rejected. The problem was paying rent on the forms at a cost of $1,000 per week. The City was making a problem with me and I have a supervisor who was not lenient and could not leave work to go to the City to resolve the issues. I was told that if the concrete is poured all the City would do is issue a fine, however it was the next working day that there were 15 issues, a lot of ill will, staff was reluctant to work with me and requested that a hire a contractor. Staff used my structural engineer to find my house unsafe and never told me of the problem with the stairs or the fencing. The structural engineer knowing all along what the laws were did not instruct me and he was present during the pouring of the structures. There should have been a beam running down the centre of the house. The Chair advised the appellant that there might be a misunderstanding as to the jurisdiction of the Board. The Board does not have jurisdiction with respect to staff at the City or individual contractors, the Board jurisdiction applies to the requested variance. The Appellant provided the following information: We have had engineering test done on the driveway and have gone through many designs, working with an architect that works with the City of Vancouver. My vehicle is a GMC Safari and has a one-inch clearance, and now on the most recent drawings submitted has a much larger clearance. The Appellant provided new drawings for the Board s review. h:\bov\minutes\2005\min bov doc Page 2

3 The Chair advised that the Board couldn t deal with a building plans that are not final and further explained to the Appellant that the Board tabled the last application for finalized plans to be presented. The Appellant stated that she has spent many hours with a designer and nothing works to get approval from building division, we finally did not submit the drawings, as we know they would not be accepted. The Manager, Residential Section stated that building division had received drawings on Friday and requested that the transportation engineer review, the feedback from the transportation engineer was that their preliminary assessment is that the plans do not meet the design criteria for a busy arterial road, the City would be reluctant to approve a driveway that would become a road hazard. The road is a very busy location and the driveway would be a severe interface. It is the assessment and advises that a basement garage not be allowed. The Appellant stated that two months ago there was no concern for the location of the driveway or the garage. The Board s concerns were that the FAR was adequate and that the building was fifty percent in ground. The Chair advised that all the issues should be resolved before the Board deals with the appeal. The Board members made the following comments: The Board cannot grant a variance unless all information is presented, the plans must be final and currently the plans before the Board are not final. This is the third time the appeal is before the Board and we have advised previously that the complete drawings are required. No extra pieces of paper should be presented at the meeting; the drawings should be final at the time of receipt of the application. The Appellant advised that she has been fasting for 25 days and will continue to fast until the Board and the City work with her in obtaining a building permit. The drawings are repeatedly rejected from the building division. The Manager, Residential Section stated that building division has not reviewed the plans beyond the driveway and that there may be new issues arising when the most recent drawings are submitted. There was a brief discussion regarding a special meeting be held. Moved by S. Round Seconded by G. Friend That Appeal be tabled one more time to resolve the problems identified by the City and that the final plans be presented to the Board so that they may make a decision regarding the requested variances. with J. Gorman opposed. the decision of the Board of Variance that the Appeal be tabled. h:\bov\minutes\2005\min bov doc Page 3

4 B. NEW APPEALS 2. Appeal No Graewe For permission to relax the height requirement from 4 m to 6.8 m to allow retention of the original residence as an accessory building at Street. Mr. and Mrs. Graewe, the Appellants, were in attendance to discuss the appeal. The Manager, Residential Section, confirmed the following information: The lot is zoned One-Acre Residential Zone (RA). The lot is 5573 square metres (approximately ½ hectare or 1.38 acres). RA lots must be a minimum of 2 hectares for agricultural and horticultural uses to be considered a principal use. Therefore the existing dwelling can only be converted to a use accessory to the new single-family dwelling. The height limit in this circumstance is 4 metres. The Appellant provided the following comments: They purchased the property six years ago and have comfortably lived in the first house on the property for 5 years. In the spring of 2005 the new home on the southwest corner of the property was completed. When we applied for permit we requested that the old building be left standing as our accessory building. We will be making the structure non-livable as per plumbing and electrical requirement. There is a height restriction for accessory buildings and to comply with the height restriction we would have to remove the roof and dormers at a minimum cost of $10,000 15, 000. We have been told that the work on a house of this age could be tricky and complicated, and there is a possibility that the roof may collapse. We would use the old house as storage/workshop. It would store things like lumber, patio and garden furniture, two large table saws and other tools, large Christmas decorations, push and ride lawnmowers, bikes, and other things you need to take care of a larger lot. This accessory building would keep things neat and orderly rather then have them outside in the yard. It would be a shame to destroy a useable building that has been part of the neighborhood landscape for over 50 years. Pasture, orchards, trees, and green space surround the house and it certainly is not an eyesore. Moved by E. Vantol That letter from the Appellant dated September 10, 2005, be received. In response to questions from the Board the Appellant stated: That there was a bond posted. h:\bov\minutes\2005\min bov doc Page 4

5 The old house is smaller than the new house and the bathrooms will be removed. suggested to the Appellant that they might want to apply to have the old house designated as a heritage house, through the Heritage Advisory Commission. There were no neighbours present to speak to this appeal. Seconded by E. Vantol That Appeal No be allowed, based on the finding of hardship, and that the issue of height was not found in the building review process and further that the house has been in the neighborhood for 50 years. the decision of the Board of Variance that the Appeal be allowed. 3. Appeal No Saligumba For permission to relax the rear yard setback requirement from 7.5 m to 4.10 m; relax the east side yard setback requirement from 1.8 m to 0.55 m; and to allow retention of a walkway roof at Avenue. Mr. and Mrs. Saligumba, the Appellants, were in attendance to discuss the appeal. The Manager, Residential Section, confirmed the following information: The lot is zoned Single Family Residential Zone (RF). Whereas the proposed structure (walkway) physically connects the existing accessory building (shed) and the principal building (dwelling), the City considers that the result is still two buildings, now simply connected by a covered walkway. The definition of accessory building (excerpt below) stipulates a minimum 1- meter separation between the accessory building and the wall of the principal building. situated at a distance of not less then 1 meter (3 feet) from an exterior wall of the main principal building to which it is accessory. Accordingly, the City considers the covered walkway structure to be a part of the principal structure. BC Building Code Considerations: The applicant indicates that the posts supporting the existing walkway roof structure are located at 558 mm from the property line. Construction located within 600 mm of the property line must be non-combustible. Accordingly, it is recommended that the appellant propose to relocate the posts such that they are a minimum of 600 mm from the property line and amend the requested variance to suit this new minimum setback. The Appellant provided the following comments: h:\bov\minutes\2005\min bov doc Page 5

6 The house was built in 1986; it was built to make it our home and a home for retired people. The house has six bedrooms and three bathrooms. The Ministry licenses us for six people and we have run this home for twenty years now and we have full support from the Ministry. The installation of the walkway was done to enhance the retired peoples safety and health. We were unaware that the structure had to comply with regulations and we were told that we would require a variance from the Board. The walkway would provide protection from the sun, rain and snow while the seniors wait for the handy dart to pick them up. We ask that the Board approve our request for the sake of our clients that are mentally challenged. We did not know that a permit was required, as the structure was not encroaching onto our neighbors property. The structure was built two years ago. Our solution to the non-combustible materials issue is to cover the wood post in concrete and cover the beams and trusses with metal soffits. The Chair requested clarification as to the zoning on the property. The Planning Technician advised that the Community Care Facility Act states as long as the facility has six clients or fewer then they are not required to rezone, if more than six then rezoning is required. The Appellant advised that they have seven clients because one client is respite care, and this was pre-approved by Victoria. That the letter from the appellant, addressed to the Adult Licensing Officer of the Fraser Health Authority, dated August 17, 2004, be received. The Manager, Residential Section stated that there are fire concerns as the code provisions require non-combustible materials and not sure that what the Appellant is proposing will work to meet the code, it is achievable, but the code is inflexible with respect to requirements and we cannot issue a permit unless the requirements are met. Seconded by That Appeal No be allowed, subject to the appellant meeting the requirements of the building with respect to noncombustible building materials. The above motion received no seconder. There was a discussion regarding the roof structure being exempt from the noncombustible requirement. The Manager, Residential Section requested that the meeting be recessed to allow for a more detailed assessment. h:\bov\minutes\2005\min bov doc Page 6

7 later in the meeting. Seconded by S. Round That Appeal No be tabled and heard The Manager, Residential Section left the meeting at 10:58 a.m. 4. Appeal No Johnston For permission to relax the flanking yard setback requirement from 3.6 m to 3.33 m to allow retention of bay windows at A Street. Mr. and Mrs. Johnston, the Appellants, were in attendance to discuss the appeal. The Planning Technician confirmed the following information: The lot is zoned Single Family Residential Zone (RF). As stated in the appellant s letter, the maximum length of box out or hutch permitted to encroach into the required minimum setback on any building face is limited to a total horizontal distance of 2.4 metres per floor, per face. The appellant s building permit application included a site plan that was used to establish compliance with the minimum setbacks. The site plan provided showed the building roof. This made it difficult to establish actual siting. The hutches and other box outs do not show on this plan. Nonetheless, this information was available on the plans and the City should not have issued the building permit for the plans as submitted. Setback: means the least horizontal distance from the lot line to the building, excluding eaves, chimneys, hutches, balconies or sundecks and bay or boxed windows which may encroach on each storey into the required setbacks, to a maximum of 0.6 meter (2 feet) provided that said hutches and bay or boxed windows shall not exceed a total of 2.4 metres (8 feet) in horizontal length along any exterior wall. The Appellant provided the following comments: We submitted our plans for approval and went ahead with construction. It was not until sheathing inspection that we were advised that there were too many box outs on the main floor. The part that was misunderstood was that the maximum of 8 feet (per floor) not per box. If this had been noticed at the approval stage we could have moved the house over another 5 inches to the side yard plus the extra room on the flanking street of 5 inches and made the box outs not as deep. Making changes would result in a house that we spent months designing not being what we want as well as put us behind schedule and there would be cost in materials and labor. h:\bov\minutes\2005\min bov doc Page 7

8 The Manager, Residential Section entered the meeting in progress at 11:05 a.m. and stated that the application was made in good faith; the issue was not caught by the plan checker. There were no neighbours present to speak to this appeal. Moved by S. Round Seconded by G. Friend That Appeal No be allowed. the decision of the Board of Variance that the Appeal be allowed. 3. Appeal No Saligumba (continued) For permission to relax the rear yard setback requirement from 7.5 m to 4.10 m; relax the east side yard setback requirement from 1.8 m to 0.55 m; and to allow retention of a walkway roof at Avenue. Mr. and Mrs. Saligumba, the Appellants, were in attendance to discuss the appeal. The Manager, Residential Section advised that the roof structure is also under dicussion and there is a fair amount of roof structure to be considered, he further requested that the Board table the appeal. The Chair advised the Appellant that he will have to meet with the Manager, Residential Section to resolve the issue of non-combustible materials and the distance to the proeprty line. suggested by the Manager, Residential Section that Mr. and Mrs. Saligumba request Mr. Denque to attend the meetings to resolve the issues. The Appellants advised that Mr. Denque is currently out of town. That Appeal No be tabled. the decision of the Board of Variance that the Appeal be tabled. 5. Appeal No Quinn For permission to relax the front yard setback requirements from 7.5 m to 6.09 m; and relax the second storey coverage from 80% to 100% to allow construction of an addition to the single family dwelling at Avenue. Mr. Jack Ferguson, the Agent for Mr. and Mrs. Quinn the Appellants, was in attendance to discuss the appeal. h:\bov\minutes\2005\min bov doc Page 8

9 Moved by J. Gorman Seconded by E. Vantol That the letter, dated September 26, 2005, authorizing Mr. Jack Ferguson, to speak on behalf of the registered owners of the property, be received. The Manager, Residential Section, confirmed the following information: The lot is zoned Single Family Residential (RF). The minimum required front yard setback is 7.5 metres. The Appellants are proposing an addition with a front yard setback of 6.09 metres. The Agent provided the following petition from the surrounding property owners. Moved by S. Round That the petition of support with the following signatures: 1. Mr. Greg Cooke-Dallin, Avenue; 2. Ms. Deirdre Hembery, Avenue; 3. Ms. Catherin Teskey, Avenue; 4. Ms. Inge Uhlemann, Avenue; and 5. Ms. Sue Konyu, Avenue, be received. The Agent provided the following comments: This design is the most economical way to get the space required for this growing family. There was some development done at the rear of the home some years ago and it would not make sense to building on top of that addition. There will be some skirt roofing to bring down the massing and we are also introducing some neo-victorian features. There were no neighbours present to speak to this appeal. Moved by S. Round That Appeal No be allowed. the decision of the Board of Variance that the Appeal be allowed. h:\bov\minutes\2005\min bov doc Page 9

10 6. Appeal No Moerman For permission to relax the front yard setback requirement from 30 m to m to bring into conformity the existing office building; and relax the south side yard setback requirement from 15 m to 6 m; and relax the north flanking yard setback requirement from 30 m to 6 m to allow construction of greenhouses at Street. Mr. S. Round left the meeting at 11:25 a.m. due to conflict of interest, as he knows the tenants of the property. Mr. Bram Moerman & Mr. Jos Moerman, the Appellants, were in attendance to discuss the appeal. The Manager, Residential Section, confirmed the following information: The lot is zoned General Agriculture Zone (A1). The north property line fronts a road right-of-way and as such requires a flanking side yard setback. This would change the requested variance for the greenhouse. We understand that the appeal is intended to recognize, and legalize an existing non-conforming setback to an existing building at the front of the lot. The minimum required front yard to this building would be 30 metres. Seconded by E. Vantol That the following correspondence: 1. Letter from the Appellant, and 2. E-correspondence, dated October 19, 2005, from the Transportation Technologist of the Transportation Division of the Engineering Department, be received. The Appellant provided the following comments: We have owned the property since September 31, The current tenant owns an organic soil mixing company and will be leaving the property. We understood the application on this property to be a temporary use permit for the soil processing; the temporary use permit would have an end date attached to it. The meeting recessed at 11:31 a.m. to allow the Planning Technician to research and provide information regarding the development application on site. The meeting reconvened at 11:42 a.m. The Planning Technician provided the following comments regarding the development application on site: There is a development application that is a rezoning and an Agricultural Land Commission (ALC) application, for soil processing. The application was sent h:\bov\minutes\2005\min bov doc Page 10

11 to the ALC two times and was denied two times. The application was sent to Council and Council tabled the application to resolve the outstanding issues. The Appellant advised that the tenant would be leaving on January 1. The Planning Technician suggested that the Appellant contact Ron Gill, Planner and advise him that the tenant will be leaving on January 1. The Appellant provided the following comments: In order to build the greenhouses that are labor and energy efficient we have to build as square as possible. A squarer greenhouse has less outside wall, so less outside walls to heat the greenhouse. For labor the same reasons how more square a greenhouse less walking distances mean more labor distances. 33% of the land is useless because of the required setbacks. We have owned the land for six weeks now and have received information that there are no special setbacks from the north property line; we then received a letter from the planning department that there is a setback of 30m on the north property line. We are trying to make the development of the greenhouses as economical as possible, when complete we will employ seven people for labor. We are already working with the Ministry of Fisheries regarding a solution to the fish ditch. There was a discussion regarding the required setback in A1 zoning and it was clarified by Staff that intensive agriculture does not include greenhouses; greenhouses are basic agriculture not intensive. also clarified that lot coverage is not limited in the A1 zone. There was a discussion regarding access from (Highway 15) 176 Street, it was clarified by the Planning Technician that in a letter from the Ministry of Transportation they have no objection to the proposed as long as access/egress to the site is right in and right out only. There were no neighbours present to speak to this appeal. Moved by D. Vantol That Appeal No be allowed. the decision of the Board of Variance that the Appeal be allowed. C. ADOPTION OF MINUTES h:\bov\minutes\2005\min bov doc Page 11

12 That the minutes of the Board of Variance meeting of September 15, 2005 be approved as circulated. D. OTHER COMPETENT BUSINESS 1. The Board requested that the Secretary provided the 2006 meeting dates on the next Board of Variance agenda. 2. The Board requested that the Secretary ensure that Lidstone, Anderson, Young have the correct mailing addresses for the Board members to receive their newsletters. E. NEXT MEETING The next meeting of the Board of Variance will be held on Thursday, November 17, 2005 at 9:00 a.m. F. ADJOURNMENT The Board of Variance meeting adjourned at 12:07 a.m. Margaret Jones, City Clerk Marie Cooper - Chairperson h:\bov\minutes\2005\min bov doc Page 12