Board of Variance Minutes

Transcription

1 Board of Variance Minutes Council Chamber City Hall Avenue Surrey, B.C. WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 2010 Time: 9:01 a.m. File: Present: Chairperson - M. Cooper A. Pease D. Kenny K. Nice Absent: S. Round Staff Present: Manager, Residential Section - Planning & Development Planner, North Surrey Division - Planning & Development Administrative Assistant, Legislative Services A. TABLED APPEALS B. NEW APPEALS 1. Appeal No Sangha For permission to relax the rear yard setback requirement from 7.5 m to 6.1 m to allow the construction of a single family dwelling at A Street Mr. Sangha was in attendance to discuss the appeal on behalf of his parents. The Manager, Residential Section, confirmed the following site information: Located in a cluster residential RC Zone, Type 2 lot. noted the RC lot is not very common; it is a zone setup for special constraints on development parcel. Appeal involved a 7.5 meter setback. The Appellant provided the following comments concerning hardship: Engaged a designer to develop a special room for an elderly family member. Assumed the design was in compliance with the zone. When the builder went to the City for the necessary approvals it was discovered the design was noncompliant and the setbacks were not done correctly. If the setbacks imposed by the City were adhered to, the room would have to be cut back; the appellant is asking for the setback to be varied. The appellant noted that his family heavily relied on the designer to ensure that the due diligence was done concerning the build. The designer was referred to the appellant by the developer. The contract is subject to due diligence and subject to making sure there are no non-financial charges that would hinder the construction of the home. h:\bov\minutes\2010\min bov docx TM 02/14/11 15:52 PM Page 1

2 Yuan Yong and Yan Jingping, of Avenue, were in attendance to speak to this appeal. Purchased their house in 2009 and understood an adjacent home would be built. Expressed concerned the view her kitchen will be blocked with the proposed development. The Board explained to the interveners that the current development plan is not encroaching on their view. Once the clarification was pointed out the neighbours withdrew their complaint. Mark Thompson, Developer of West Vancouver, was in attendance to speak to this appeal: Completed three homes in the subdivision and noted there was a 4-year break between each housing project and a preliminary design for the lot in question. In hindsight, the developer missed the fact it was an RC lot instead of an RF. RF lots have variable setbacks. The developer shared the lot is extremely challenging trying to get the configuration to fit; further there was no building envelop with this particular development. Each home in the area needed some degree of flexibility and Sandbox approved the appellant's design. The developer accepted responsibility for the lot and the associated issues the lot presents. The hardship in this appeal is that it is a very challenging lot and assistance in helping the owners reach some satisfactory conclusion would be appreciated. The design controllers responsible for the subdivision are in favour and agree the proposed plan is reasonable. There is a justifiable hardship concerning the lot and the associated setbacks. Planning Staff provided clarification regarding the lot line configurations and noted it is not a complicated rear yard setback. Planning advised that the lot is buildable. Staff shared that there would be a rear yard variable option if the lot was an RF. Moved by D. Kenny That correspondence be received from Marque Thompson, Design Marque Consulting Ltd. as contained on Page 6 of the appeal package. h:\bov\minutes\2010\min bov docx Page 2

3 The Chair noted that the hardship in this case is that the appellant clearly assumed the designer would be in compliance. Moved by D. Kenney That Appeal No be allowed pointing out that the slope precludes the sighting to the building below; the approval is based on plan provided on Page 7 of the appeal package. the decision of the Board of Variance that Appeal be allowed. 2. Appeal No Bassi For permission to relax the south side yard setback requirement from 1.2 m to 1.15 m to allow the retention of the foundation and framing for a proposed dwelling at Street. Moved by A. Pease That the agent change notice naming Ravinder Klalch, as presented on table, be received as information. Ravinder Klalch and Harmesh Bassi were in attendance to discuss the appeal. The Manager, Residential Section, confirmed the following site information: The development is located in RF9 C Zone. The minimum required setback is 1.2 m. The Appellant provided the following comments concerning hardship: Currently building a house that is subject to a stop work order due to an encroachment. Encroaching by 1 inch by the foundation and 1 inch by the sheathing. In total encroaching by 1.97 inches. The forms on the south side bowed the concrete. Prior to the concrete pour, the forms were observed as being compliant to the setback. A building inspector noticed the encroachment on final building inspection and issued a stop work order. As a result of the stop work order, the portion of the house with the encroachment would need to be torn down to comply. The appellant requested a variance of 2 inches. There were no neighbours present to speak to this appeal. h:\bov\minutes\2010\min bov docx Page 3

4 Members of the Board made the following concluding comments regarding the variance or exemption to relieve hardship: The Board expressed concern regarding Section 219 covenant on this application. Planning Staff clarified that Section 219 relates to the front yard setback and has no relevance to the south side yard. Moved by K. Nice Seconded by A. Pease That Appeal No be approved. the decision of the Board of Variance that Appeal be allowed. 3. Appeal No Dobbie For permission to relax the accessory building height requirement from 4.0 m to 6.65 m to allow the construction of a 3 car garage with recreation room above at Street. Hugh Dobbie was in attendance to discuss the appeal. The Manager, Residential Section, confirmed the following site information: The lot is located in the One Acre Residential (RA) Zone. The lot has an area of approximately 4427 square metres, and accordingly remains within the RA Zone for all regulations. The height of an accessory building or structure shall not exceed 4 metres except that where the roof slope and construction materials of an accessory building, the building height of the accessory building may be varied to 5 metres. The roof slope of the principal building on the subject lot is 6.5/12. The design roof slope for the accessory building is 5/ 12. The construction materials are the same for the two buildings but the roof slope is not, therefore, the maximum allowably height for the accessory building is 4 metres. Historically By-law 2265 contained a height limit for accessory buildings of 4 metres and outbuildings are limited to one storey. An amendment was made in By-law 1200 changing the height limit of 4 meters. When this change was implemented, appeals coming to the Board of Variance for triple garages increased. The bylaw was then amended to state that if the roof slope and the construction materials met the footprint of the building, appellants could go to 5 metres. noted that currently, there is no restriction in the bylaw regarding a second storey. Planning Staff will monitor the current bylaw and the number of associated appeals. h:\bov\minutes\2010\min bov docx Page 4

5 The Appellant provided the following comments concerning hardship: There are 4 cars in the family; there is no basement but a 3 foot crawl space. Brought a designer in to look at creating an outbuilding for extra storage. The plan involved the creation of a games room and a storage space. The design plan for the games room and storage location required 6.65 metres. The appellant explained that the plans were submitted to the City by the designer; when it was discovered they fell outside of the by-law height restriction of 5 metres, an appeal was made to have the plans submitted to the BOV for consideration. There were no neighbours present to speak to this appeal. Moved by K. Nice Seconded by D. Kenny That Appeal No be approved. the decision of the Board of Variance that Appeal be allowed. The meeting recessed at 10:25 a.m. and reconvened at 10:50 a.m. with the same members in attendance. C. ADOPTION OF MINUTES Moved by D. Kenny That the minutes of the Board of Variance meeting of October 27, 2010 be approved as circulated. D. OTHER COMPETENT BUSINESS A motion was provided on table and read by A. Pease on behalf of S. Round for Board Member consideration. The Board requested that the motion also be prepared as a formal letter with a "To Whom It May Concern" header and be copied to the following: Council, City Manager, City Clerk, and Human Resources. Moved by D. Kenny Seconded by A. Pease That The Board of Variance of the City of Surrey, British Columbia, wishes to formally and publically acknowledge the significant professional and ethical contribution made by Carmela Bonneville, during her various terms at Secretary to the Board. The Board wishes to acknowledge the contribution made to the Board by Carmela. The "City of Surrey Guide to Appealing to the Board of Variance" was Carmela's idea. The h:\bov\minutes\2010\min bov docx Page 5

6 instructions provided help appellants understand the process and how to do their appeal application. Municipalities around British Columbia ask to use the guide. The administration of the Board's affairs lies within the purview of the position of Secretary to the Board. Its public image, the efficiency of the processing of individual applications, the confidence of appellants in their belief and hope of receiving a fair and honest hearing starts and ends in the way that the Secretary of the Board handles the communication between the Board and the Public. The confidence that the Board has had in the exemplary manner in which Carmela Bonneville has performed her duties is so high as to warrant this unusual formal motion of gratitude and respect be recorded in the Board Minutes, as Mrs. Bonneville seeks to further her distinguished career. E. NEXT MEETING The next meeting of the Board of Variance will be held on Wednesday, December 8, 2010 at 9:00 a.m. F. ADJOURNMENT The Board of Variance meeting adjourned at 11:09 a.m. Marie Cooper - Chairperson h:\bov\minutes\2010\min bov docx Page 6