Board of Variance Minutes

Transcription

1 Board of Variance Minutes Council Chamber City Hall Avenue Surrey, B.C. TUESDAY, APRIL 20, 2004 Time: 9:00 a.m. Present: Chairperson - M. Cooper G. Friend R. Heed E. Vantol Absent: D. Cutler Staff Present: J. McKenzie Manager, Residential Section, Planning & Development D. Hoey Planning Technician, Planning & Development C. Bonneville Secretary to the Board C. Baron Drainage and Environment Manager, Engineering Department G. Gahr Senior Planner, Planning and Development A. TABLED APPEALS 1. Appeal No Schmidt For permission to relax the flanking yard setback requirement from 3.6 m to 1.8 m to allow construction of a single family dwelling at A Avenue Mr. Shaun Schmidt, the Appellant, was in attendance to discuss the appeal. The property is located in the Single Family Residential Zone (RF). The Lot is a corner lot with the shorter property line, along 15A Avenue, being the front lot line, and the side yard along 127 Street being the side yard on a flanking street. The Appellant is planning to construct a single-family dwelling. For a principal building, the RF zone requires a minimum side yard setback of 3.7 meters on a flanking street. The Appellant is proposing a flanking side yard setback of 1.8 meters to the principal building. The Appellant provided the following information: There is a combination of several factor that are restricting building on this lot. First, the lot size was set in 1818 and newer lots are now set out in larger sizes; Secondly, there are several trees that are over sixty years old that we would like to retain on the property; and thirdly, there is no surface drainage from the street and the location of the driveway is limited. We require more living space we have one child and are considering another. We also will be looking after elderly parents in the future. We had considered putting the garage beneath but due to drainage issue we couldn t. The option to reduce the west side yard to 1.2 meter will only allow for another 100 square feet of living space and there is a concern for protecting the root base of the heritage trees on the property. h:\bov\minutes\2004\min bov doc seh 07/05/10 13:55 PM Page 1

2 One of the large trees will have to be removed, as it is a hazard with having large branches falling onto the deck and fence. Sap and animal droppings also fall onto our vehicles. We had previously looked at renovating but have determined that we will demolish the whole house. There is concern for flooding in the area. We did hire a geo-technical engineer to advise that it is okay to drain into the soil as it has been doing in the past. In response to questions from the Board, City staff advised: The average lot width today is 15 meters; the lot in question is meters wide and 30 meters deep. Moved by E. Vantol Seconded by R. Heed That the following letters, expressing no objection to the appeal, be received: 1. Maria & Bill Pavlik, A Avenue; 2. Ryan Sharp, Avenue. Seconded by G. Friend That Appeal be tabled, pending further information from the Engineering Department regarding the drainage in the area and access to storm system. the decision of the Board of Variance that the Appeal be tabled and addressed later in the meeting. The meeting recessed at 9:25 a.m. to allow staff to request Engineering staff to attend the meeting and reconvened at 9:30 a.m. C. Baron, the Drainage and Environment Manager entered the meeting at 9:45 a.m. B. NEW APPEALS 2. Appeal No Randhawa For permission to relax the rear yard setback requirement from 7.5 m to 5.2 m to allow construction of a rear deck at A Avenue. Mr. Luvdeep Randhawa, the Appellant, was in attendance to discuss the appeal. h:\bov\minutes\2004\min bov doc Page 2

3 Moved by G. Friend That the letter from the Appellant s Design Consultant, Filip Christiaanse of Tynan Consulting Ltd. be received. The property is located in the Single Family Residential Zone (RF). The required rear yard setback is 7.5 meters. The new owners of the property have partially constructed a deck at the rear of the single family dwelling under construction on the property. The rear wall of the house is essentially at the minimum setback; accordingly the partially constructed deck encroaches into the required rear yard setback. The Appellant advised: The encroachment was unintentional; the home designer did not include a sundeck in the plans submitted. The deck was added at a later date and was built prior to obtaining approval from the City. We have lived in Surrey for 29 years and this is the first time we are building a house. We were unclear that we had to come to the City of Surrey for final approval. So far we have invested approximately $4,000 dollars into the lumber for the deck and it will cost more to repair the rear wall and remove the deck. The original plans were purchased with the property and we started the construction. There was a sidebar discussion regarding the submitted plans and the revised plans. The Appellant advised that building plans were purchased from the developer and it was Preyhold Holdings that purchased the permit. Construction started at the end of December. The Design Consultant did stamp the plan with a date of December 22. There were no neighbors present to speak to this appeal. Moved by G. Friend Seconded by M. Cooper That Appeal No be denied. with E. Vantol and R. Heed opposed Due to a tie vote on the decision of the Board of Variance Appeal was disallowed. h:\bov\minutes\2004\min bov doc Page 3

4 A. TABLED APPEALS (continued) 1. Appeal No Schmidt (continued) For permission to relax the flanking yard setback requirement from 3.6 m to 1.8 m to allow construction of a single family dwelling at A Avenue Carrie Baron, the Drainage and Environment Manager of the Engineering Department was present to discuss the appeal. The following comments were provided: Currently there is no connection to the City s storm system, however there is a small pipe across the street along 15A Avenue. There is no reason why connection to the pipe would be a problem. The connection would not be easy as it is across a roadway and a pump would be required. The Appellant provided the following comments: We were told that the pipe along 15A Avenue did not connect to anything. When we construct our home we do not want to adversely affect the homes around us by causing flooding on their properties. We do not know the capacity for the pipe along 15A Avenue and there currently is no catch basin for water. If we were to use the option to reduce the west side yard to 1.2 meter it would only provide an additional 100 square feet of living space. We don t want to build our house too close to our neighbor to the west and that is also why we will not exercise that option. Our family currently sits with TV trays, as there is not sufficient room for a dining room. That Appeal be allowed. with G. Friend opposed. the decision of the Board of Variance that the Appeal be allowed. C. Baron left the meeting and the meeting recessed at 10:30 a.m. and reconvened at 10:50 a.m. with the same Board members present. B. NEW APPEALS (continued) 3. Appeal No Groeneveld For permission to relax the rear yard setback requirement from 1.8 m to.91 m, and relax the flanking yard setback requirement from 7.5 m to 1.22 m to allow construction of a detached garage at Street. Mr. Floyd Groeneveld, the Appellant was in attendance to discuss the appeal. h:\bov\minutes\2004\min bov doc Page 4

5 The property is located in the Single Family Residential Zone (RF). The lot is a corner lot with the shorter property line, along 142 Street, being the front lot line, and the side yard along Hyland Road being the side yard on a flanking street. The Appellant proposes a detached garage. The minimum required flanking yard setback for an accessory building is 7.5 meters. The minimum required rear yard setback for an accessory building is 1.8 meters. The Appellant is proposing an accessory building with a flanking yard setback of 1.22 meters and a rear yard setback of 0.91 meter. The Appellant advised: We are locating the garage so as not to obstruct any of the neighboring views. The garage will be used to restore collector cars. There is no other way to build a garage on the property and comply with the required building envelope. The property has a different grade and landscaping is in place. The height of the garage will be 12 feet, the maximum requirement is 13 feet. The building will not look out of place. The distance from the garage to the house is 7 feet. The difference in the property grade is approximately 4 feet. The Manager, Residential Section - Planning & Development confirmed building height is measured from the mid point of the roof from peak to end of the roof. objection to the appeal, be received: 1. J. Tait, Street. That the following letter, expressing no There were no neighbors present to speak to the appeal. That Appeal No be allowed. the decision of the Board of Variance that the Appeal be allowed. 4. Appeal No Poulin For permission to relax the flanking side yard setback requirement from 7.5 m to 5.79 m to allow construction of a swimming pool at A Street. h:\bov\minutes\2004\min bov doc Page 5

6 Mr. James Poulin, the Appellant was in attendance to discuss the appeal. The property is located in the Single Family Residential (RF) zone. The lot is a corner lot with the shorter property line, along 186A Street, being the front lot line. The side yard along 62A Avenue is the side yard on a flanking street. The Appellant proposes to construct a swimming pool in the back yard area. Swimming pools must be sited in accordance with the requirements for accessory buildings. Accordingly the minimum flanking side yard required is 7.5 meters. The Appellant is requesting a relaxation of the flanking side yard setback to 5.79 meters. The Appellant provided the following comments: The undue hardship rests with the inability to enjoy the yard and property with restrictions on installing a pool for recreational and fitness usage on our property. The house is located on a corner lot and set within limits and the proposed pool is well back from the house and neighboring properties. Letters were provided from adjacent neighbors with no objections to installation of a pool. Photos were provided for information and consideration of the entire back yard and side views. An approximate six-foot high fence surrounds the entire property as well as two side gates for added security and safety. Also an existing cedar hedge on the north side would be supplemented to substantially reduce noise and add to privacy. A salt water system is proposed and not a highly chlorinated system to reduce odor. The homeowner is the president of the Cloverdale Tritons Swim Club and both household children ages 11 and 13 have been actively swimming for five years and are competitive winter and summer swimmers. The pool will be at ground level. The pool will have a mechanical building, however we have not determined the location of the building. The length of the pool is required for the children to do laps. There are trees in the north area of the yard that we are trying to retain, preserve and supplement with other trees. The Manager, Residential Section - Planning & Development confirmed that the mechanical building would have to be sited as per the applicable by-law and would require a permit. h:\bov\minutes\2004\min bov doc Page 6

7 Seconded by G. Friend That the following letters of no objection: 1. Yolanda Cavanagh, A Avenue; 2. Colin and Patricia dekergommeaux, A Street; and the letter of objection from: 3. D. A. Kingston, A Avenue, be received. There were no neighbors present to speak to this appeal. Moved by E. Vantol Seconded by G. Friend That Appeal No be denied. the decision of the Board of Variance that the Appeal be denied. 5. Appeal No Arneill For permission to relax the height requirement from 4 m to 5.03 m to allow construction of an accessory building at Avenue. Ms. Heather Arneill, the Appellant, was in attendance to discuss the appeal. The property is located in the Acreage Residential Gross Density Zone (R-A(G)) under Zoning By-law Accessory buildings in this zone are limited to one storey and to a height not exceeding 4 metres. The accessory building design received in support of the initial building permit application was for an over height 2 storey building. The building permit was issued for a revised design that met the requirements of the zone. The Appellant proposes an accessory building of 2 storeys and 5.03 meters in height. The Chair requested clarification of Zoning By-law 5942, By-law and Schedule E. She noted that Schedule E does not have the property in question listed. The Manager, Residential Section - Planning & Development advised that his Schedule E does have the property in question listed. Following a sidebar discussion the meeting recessed to request clarification from Planning and Development Department staff on the amendments to Schedule E. The Chair further requested that the Secretary retrieve the original By-law The meeting recessed at 11:35 a.m. and reconvened at 11:50 a.m. with the same members of the Board present. G. Gahr, Planner was also in attendance. In response to questions from the Board, the Planner advised: h:\bov\minutes\2004\min bov doc Page 7

8 There are additional amendments to Schedule E from time to time. The parent parcel was subdivided and individual parcel created. As each parcel was built upon, a conversion bylaw was adopted and converted them into by-law G. Gahr left the meeting at 12:00 a.m. In response to question from the Board members, City staff advised: When construction is complete on the property the zoning will convert to By-law By-law 5942 restricts construction to a one-storey building, whereas By-law has no limit on the number of floors. The height of the building is allowed at 5 meters if the construction materials match the principal building. Planning staff had contacted the designer and confirmed 5.03 m as the required variance. The Appellant provided the following information: We are parents of four boys with changing needs. When we purchased this lot to build a home we were advised in this area there are mostly one-acre lots and made the presumption that all the zoning in the area was the same. We did not know that the lot was part of a subdivision. We want to build a unique home that would compliment the other homes in the area. After consideration of parking needs, pool maintenance, storage of gardening tools we decided that it would be unique to build an accessory building in a Cape Cod design that would be architecturally consistent with the principal building. The house across the street has the distinctive dormer windows and we assumed that the same rules would apply to our property. It would seem senseless not to build the accessory building to be consistent with the principal building. The Manager, Residential Section - Planning & Development advised that: Under By-law 5942 there is no requirement for complementary features between the accessory and principal building. Under By-law 5942 there is no requirement for floor area ratio. The proposed accessory building is two floors. That Appeal No be allowed. the decision of the Board of Variance that the Appeal be allowed. The meeting recessed at 12:32 a.m. and reconvened at 1:37 p.m. with the same Board members present. h:\bov\minutes\2004\min bov doc Page 8

9 6. Appeal No Meekley For permission to relax the front yard setback requirement from 18.0 m to 17.3 m to allow retention of an accessory building at Street. Ms. Paddy Meekley & Mr. Christopher Meekley, the Appellants were in attendance to discuss the appeal. The property is located in the One-Acre Residential Zone (RA). The property is designated Suburban in the OCP and the lot is 8385 m 2 in area. The siting and density requirements of the RA Zone remain applicable. The lot is a corner lot with the shorter property line, along 26 Avenue, being the front lot line, and the side yard along 132 Street being the side yard on a flanking street. The Appellants propose to construct a new single family dwelling on the property and convert the existing dwelling into a conforming accessory building. As the existing building is reported to be 17.3 meters from the front property line, this requires a variance of the required minimum front yard setback of 18 meters for an accessory building. A building permit application for the new residence has been submitted. The Appellant provided the following information: The building in question is 37 years old and was built by the original owners. It is a neat little building that has mature landscaping around it. To remove the building or a portion of it would impact on the beautiful landscaping. The new building will close off the current driveway and it will be moved further up 132 Street. 26 Avenue is where the front of the building will face and the trees along 26 Avenue will remain the same. Seconded by G. Friend That the following letters be received: 1. Paddy & Christopher Meekley, the Appellants; of no objection: 2. Carol Wilkes, Avenue; 3. Hsieh Hong, Avenue (two letters); 4. Trudy Dollman, Avenue; and 5. Jessie Dhanday, Street. There were no neighbors present to speak to this appeal. h:\bov\minutes\2004\min bov doc Page 9

10 Seconded by G. Friend That Appeal No be allowed. the decision of the Board of Variance that the Appeal be allowed. 7. Appeal No Chitty For permission to relax the front yard setback requirement from 7.5 m to 5.31 m to allow construction of a single family dwelling at Avenue. Mr. Stephen Chitty, Appellant, and Ms. Virginia Gillespie, Appellant s Agent were in attendance to discuss the appeal. The property is located in the Single Family Residential Zone (RF). The required front yard setback is 7.5 meters. The Appellants propose to construct a new single family dwelling at 5.31 meters. A building permit application for the new residence has been submitted. From a safety perspective it would be prudent to place the home further forward away from the bluff. The Appellant provided the following comments: We are trying to retain the trees on site and are limited on the building footprint. We are building a moderate sized house, the house has been reduced from its original drawings and the basement has been removed due to drainage issues. The building will not be visible from the road. The house to the east will not be affected by the requested variance and the closest house is considerably higher. The neighbors are okay with our requested variance. The proposed layout will preserve the trees on the property and the existing sheds will be removed. We would like to retain one of the buildings for a workshop. That the following letters be received: 1. Stephen Chitty & Virginia Gillespie, the Appellants; and 2. Aelicia Otto, Certified Arborist. Moved by G. Friend Seconded by R. Heed That Appeal No be allowed. h:\bov\minutes\2004\min bov doc Page 10

11 the decision of the Board of Variance that the Appeal be allowed. 8. Appeal No Paterson For permission to relax the front yard setback requirement from 7.5 m to 4.5 m and to relax the flanking yard setback requirement from 3.6 m to 2.43 m to allow construction of a single family residence at Avenue. Ms. Barbara Paterson and Mr. Charles Paterson, the Appellants, were in attendance to discuss the appeal. The property is located in the Single Family Residential Zone (RF). The lot is a corner lot with the shorter property line along 13 Avenue, being the front lot line, and the side yard along 128A Street being the side yard on a flanking street. The Engineering Department advised that there are no plans, neither short term nor long term to open this section of roadway. The Appellants propose to construct a house on the property and are requesting a relaxation of the flanking side yard setback from 3.6 meters to 2.43 meters. The west side yard of the property is proposed for the minimum 1.2 meter, which is allowed when the other side yard is at least 2.4 meters. A relaxation is also required with respect to the front yard setback. The variable setback options allow a minimum setback of 4.5 meters for a garage whose door face the side yard, but only where not less than 50% of the front building face is setback a minimum of 9 meters. The setback for a garage does not extend to the room above the garage. Accordingly, it is considered that the Appellant requires a relaxation of the standard front yard setback from 7.5 meters to 4.2 meters (a garage hutch is not consider a permitted encroachment). The Appellant advised: We are requesting to build a 30-foot wide home with the non-roadway beside us. We have had the geo-technical work completed and we are conscious of keeping the bluff in tact. Seconded by G. Friend That Appeal No be allowed. the decision of the Board of Variance that the Appeal be allowed. h:\bov\minutes\2004\min bov doc Page 11

12 C. ADOPTION OF MINUTES Moved by G. Friend That the minutes of the Board of Variance meeting of March 16, 2004 be approved as circulated. D. OTHER COMPETENT BUSINESS 1. The notification letters were approved by the Board and initialed by the Chair. 2. The Board requested the new draft of the Board of Variance by-law be placed on the next agenda to allow the Board members more time to review the document. There was a brief discussion regarding request for reappointment letters and it was the decision of the Board that the Chair have further discussion with the Secretary and that the Secretary advise the members accordingly. E. NEXT MEETING The next meeting of the Board of Variance will be held on Tuesday, May 18, 2004 at 9:00 a.m. F. ADJOURNMENT The Board of Variance meeting adjourned at 2:35 p.m. Chairperson h:\bov\minutes\2004\min bov doc Page 12