Tuesday, December 21, Committee Room City Hall Avenue Surrey, B.C. Tuesday, December 21, 1993 Time: 9:03 a.m.

Transcription

1 Tuesday, Committee Room City Hall Avenue Surrey, B.C. Tuesday, Time: 9:03 a.m. Present: M. Ermter - Acting Chairman; Board Members: M. Cooper, A. Rowe, B. Dack, and E. MacLean. Also Present: C. van den Broek and D. Hoey, Planning & Development, for a portion of the meeting, and J. Turner - Administrative Assistant. A. TABLED APPEALS Appeal No Ham's Market Ltd. - Appeal No Ham's Market Ltd. - for permission to relax the west side yard setback requirement from 6m to 1.88m to allow the construction of a new convenience store with residence above at Avenue. Mr. Ham and his agent, Mr. Vandenbos, were present. Since the last presentation, the appellant has learned he has an additional 8-1/2 feet on his property (he had been dealing with an old map). This permits the issues of parking and landscaping to be adequately resolved. As well, the appellant has revised the lot plan and submitted elevations. The size of the building has altered to 41 feet x 52 feet and will remain a two-storey structure. This structure, however, will continue to need relaxation on the west property line. Mr. Vandenbos stated that the appeal addresses the requirements of the City Engineer. He added that there may be an additional problem with respect to access stating, however, that the existing plan could accommodate this if the requested relaxation were granted. That the Engineering Department be consulted with respect to the issue of road requirements and access. M. Mah of the Engineering Department entered the meeting. Mr. Mah pointed out that the Engineering Department desires only a single access onto the subject property, from 140 Street. He made reference to his authority under the Highways and Traffic By-law, which allows Engineering to restrict access onto arterial roads. Their mandate is to restrict driveways onto these arterials as much possible. During discussion, it was noted this additional Engineering requirement may affect the provision of the necessary nine parking stalls and possibly the siting of the building. Further discussion ensued concerning traffic volumes on 140 Street and on 92 Avenue, as well as on the Engineering standard for not locating accesses too close to an intersection. Mr. Mah pointed out the subject

2 intersection is proposed to be signalized in 1994, and access onto 92 Avenue from the proposed property may become a safety hazard. Mr. Ham confirmed his need to continue with two accesses into his property from an economic viability point of view. pointed out by Mr. Vandenbos that other stores exist which have similar situations. Mr. Ham and his agent, Mr. Vandenbos, requested an adjournment of this appeal to the January 1994 meeting. Adjournment was granted. B. NEW APPEALS Appeal No Dendoff Springs Limited - Appeal No Dendoff Springs Limited - for permission to relax the flanking yard setback requirement from 7.5m to 1.52m to allow the construction of a two-storey office addition onto the existing structure at Old Yale Road. Mrs. M. A. Morris of Dendoff Springs Limited and her agent from Acton Johnson Ostry Architects were present. That a letter authorizing the agent to speak on behalf of the appellant be received. When Dendoff Springs acquired the subject lands one year ago, the zoning was I-G. At that time, City Hall confirmed there would be no problems with the intended building renovations. Acton Johnson was employed to design office facilities and renovations for the existing structure. Since then, the zoning has changed to IL and imposes a setback to the west property line of 25 feet. noted the old zoning requirements imposed a setback of 1.5 metres. The new requirements make the existing siting of the building a legally existing non-conformity and imposes a greater setback on new construction. The delegation indicated they wished to demolish two small office structures at the front of the building and replace these with a two-storey office structure. As well, road widening along Old Yale Road will require the relocation of access onto the site from the front to the rear to allow a more efficient operation. noted the setback relaxation required is next to an unconstructed road. the decision of the Board of Variance that this appeal be allowed. Appeal No Maggio - Appeal No Maggio - for permission to relax the height requirement from 4m to 4.88m to allow the construction of a pole barn for recreational vehicle storage purposes at Avenue. Mr. Maggio was present and stated he wishes to construct a freestanding structure to house his 10-1/2 foot tall recreational vehicle trailer and other vehicles which require storage. He noted he had purchased this property seven years ago. Mr. van den Broek confirmed that, prior to the new Zoning By-law, there were no height restrictions for structures such as that proposed by Mr. Maggio.

3 That a letter from Keith & Doralie Roon of Avenue, expressing no opposition to the appeal, be received. the decision of the Board of Variance that this appeal be allowed. Appeal No Synod of Diocese of New Westminster - Appeal No Synod of Diocese of New Westminster - for permission to relax the rear yard setback requirement from 7.5m to.45m to allow the construction of a Church Sunday School Hall at Avenue. Ms. Preedy of the Synod of Diocese of New Westminster was present and submitted a letter from the Legal Department of the Synod stating that the Synod will proceed with amalgamation and that papers are in for registration. That the following two letters be received: Donald Paul, Registrar of the Diocese of New Westminster announcing the intention to amalgamate Barry Foord of the Synod of the Diocese of New Westminster making the request for the amalgamation. Moved by E. MacLean Seconded by B. Dack That the Board of Variance not take action until registration of the amalgamation has actually occurred. Seconded by B. Dack To adjourn consideration of Appeal to the January meeting to permit receipt of the necessary documentation. Appeal No M.G. Chemicals Ltd. - Appeal No M.G. Chemicals Ltd. - for permission to relax the east side yard setback requirement from 7.5m to 3.67m and to relax the rear yard setback requirement from 7.5m to 0m to allow the construction of a warehouse/office facility addition to an existing building at Street. Shawn Robertson, Vice President of M.G. Chemicals Ltd. and Jack McGuire were present. That a letter authorizing Jack McGuire to act on behalf of the appellant be received.

4 Moved by B. Dack That a letter from Dave Gibb, owner of the lot to the east of the subject lot, expressing no opposition, be received. The delegation advised the Board that the design was under way for the proposed structure when the zoning change was made. The appeal request would have been allowed under the old I-G zone. The delegation pointed out the neighbourhood has developed under this old zone and that two neighbouring structures are located on rear lot lines. The appeal would allow the subject structure to conform with existing development. As well, the delegation pointed out that the proposed construction would eliminate the opportunity for breakins, which have plagued the neighbouring property owner over the last year. the decision of the Board of Variance that this appeal be allowed. Appeal No Bower - Appeal No Bower - for permission to relax the south side yard setback requirement from 1m to 0m and to relax the north side yard setback requirement from 1.2m to.61m to allow retention of a shed attached to the north side of the dwelling and to allow retention of a detached shed on the south side of the property at Street. That the following letters be received: D. Hammersmark Street Opposed S. Vanderzwan Street Supporting The Administrative Assistant advised the Board of the existence of covenants registered against the property. The delegation advised the Board the dwelling has a 1,400 square foot footprint on a 58 foot x 120 foot lot. The rationale for the siting of the structures is due to the location of a greenbelt to the rear of the property and a covenant. The shed is proposed to house equipment, etc. The delegation pointed out that as many as twenty neighbours have similar sheds on their property. A Board member expressed concern that the roof line of the shed overhangs the fence line onto the neighbouring property, and pointed out the Board has no authority to grant encroachments onto other properties. The delegation noted this neighbour has written to express support for retention of the shed in its present location. the decision of the Board of Variance that this appeal be tabled to allow submission of details of construction of the original dwelling, and details of lot size and distances from all property lines to all structures, and dimensions of all structures, from the appellant and the Building Department. Appeal No Kyle -

5 Appeal No Kyle - for permission to relax the north side yard setback requirement from 15m to 4.57m to allow the construction of a barn/garage/shop/shed structure on the property at Street. Mr. Kyle was present and pointed out the limitations of the lot, including that it is long and narrow, with a reduced frontage. He pointed out the pasture and floodplain areas, which restrict construction options. Mr. Kyle explained his intention to demolish existing buildings and rebuild a structure to enable storage of two old vehicles and woodworking tools. This will improve the appearance of the back yard and by avoiding locating the structure in the front yard, will prevent obstructing the neighbours' views. Mr. Kyle informed the Board that in the spring of 1993 he had been advised by City Hall that the setback would be 14 feet. When he submitted plans, he was told the By-law had changed and now required a 50 foot setback. In the meantime, he had spent $1,000 on plans. the decision of the Board of Variance that this appeal be allowed. Appeal No D'Arcy - Appeal No D'Arcy - for permission to relax the side yard setback requirement from 1m to 0m and to relax the front yard setback requirement from 18m to 2m to allow the retention of a cedar shed on the property at Alexandra Street. Mrs. D'Arcy was present and advised the Board she built a conforming house and garage. During final inspection of these structures, she was advised of the encroachment of the shed and was referred to the Board of Variance. Mrs. D'Arcy explained that although the legal front of the lot is McBride Avenue, the actual front is Alexandra Street. A Board member expressed concern that the shed appears to overhang onto the neighbouring yard. noted this neighbour is not opposed to the retention of the shed. As well, it was noted the Board of Variance is unable to deal with other covenants, such as the Crescent Beach covenant. Mr. van den Broek suggested that the appellant may wish to obtain legal counsel to determine whether the Crescent Beach covenant remains valid at this time, and to determine enforcement of this document. noted the Board of Variance has jurisdiction to deal with the appeal, as the covenant under discussion is not registered under Section 215 of the Municipal Act. The appellant chose to proceed. the decision of the Board of Variance that this appeal be allowed. noted by the Board of Variance that the letter to the appellant should state that no part of the shed may encroach across the property line. This would include the roof and gutters. Appeal No Borkenhagen - Appeal No Borkenhagen - for permission to relax the east side yard setback requirement from 4.5m to 3.3m, to relax the west side yard setback requirement from 4.5m to 2.3m and to relax the front yard setback requirement from 18m to 14.6m to allow the retention of an existing dwelling and garage converted to living area and to allow the construction of a new detached garage, both located at Crescent Road. Mr. & Mrs. Borkenhagen were present. Moved by E. MacLean Seconded by Mr. Cooper

6 That a letter authorizing Mr. Borkenhagen to discuss the appeal be received. Mr. Borkenhagen advised there are two issues with the current appeal, including the intention to renovate an existing house, which does not conform to the side yard setbacks, and the proposal to demolish an existing carport and to reconstruct a garage on the remaining foundation. With respect to the garage, the appellant referred to the steep angle of the road, which makes the southwest corner of the proposed garage encroach, while the southeast corner would be legally sited. As well, Mr. Borkenhagen wishes to retain a 50-year-old tree located immediately to the north of the carport and can only do this with the requested relaxation. He also noted that as Crescent Beach is a heritage road, it is desired to retain as many trees as possible on the neighbouring properties. Mr. Borkenhagen clarified that another shed seen on the property closer to the front yard is intended to be demolished. That the following letters be received: Clara Hadden Crescent Road No Opposition D.W. & P. Leary Crescent Road No Objection the decision of the Board of Variance that this appeal be allowed. Appeal No Moorcroft - Appeal No Moorcroft - for permission to relax the height requirement from 4m to 9.63m to allow the construction of a twelve-car detached garage on the property at Avenue. Mr. & Mrs. Moorcroft were present and advised the Board they wished to amend their appeal to request relaxation to 20 feet at the peak. They intend to step the garage down to conform with the grade of the property. This structure will conform with neighbouring garages, which are about feet in height. In response to a suggestion that the roof pitch be changed, the delegation pointed out he desires storage at the second level for woodworking tools and storage at the lower level for cars. The delegation pointed out that when they purchased their property in April of 1993 the zoning was RS and imposed no height restrictions. Since that time, the By-law has changed and now imposes a height restriction. That the following letters be received: Mr. & Mrs. B. Miller Street No Objection N. Cooksley Avenue No Objection J.W. McCracken Street No Objection Markau Street No Objection S. Zaragoza Avenue No Objection D. & E. Kos Avenue No Objection

7 Seconded by A. Rowe That a letter from K. Evans of Avenue, expressing no opposition to the appeal, be received. The Administrative Assistant advised the Board of the existence of a covenant on the property. Mr. van den Broek viewed the documents and clarified that the covenant is on Lot 2 in favour of Lot 1. The appellant's plans were reviewed by Mr. van den Broek but could not be commented upon, as they are not in their final form. suggested that the appellant clarify his intention and resubmit to the next Board of Variance meeting. Discussion ensued concerning servicing standards and procedures of the Department of Health. Mr. van den Broek agreed to provide information to the next meeting concerning servicing. This appeal is tabled to allow submission of correct plans and information on servicing. Appeal No Ford - Appeal No Ford - for permission to relax the height requirement from 4m to 5.12m to allow the construction of a detached two-storey garage/office on the property at Street. Mr. Ford was present. The Administrative Assistant advised of the existence of a covenant on the property. The appellant confirmed the home is a 3-bedroom home. As well, he advised the garage is intended to contain a loft to be used as a construction office. In response to a question concerning approval from the Boundary Health Unit for the location of the building, Mr. van den Broek indicated the application will be channelled through the Health Department as part of the permit application process. He noted the application will be accepted, but not processed until the Health Department approval has been received. As well, he noted that an application would not be accepted where an encroachment exists. the decision of the Board of Variance that this appeal be allowed. Appeal No Lutar - Appeal No Lutar - for permission to relax the front yard setback requirement from 18m to 3.6m to allow the construction of a swimming pool on the property at A Street. The appellant was not present to speak to this appeal. the decision of the Board of Variance that this appeal be tabled to allow the presence of the appellant. Appeal No Cremer - Appeal No Cremer - for permission to relax the height requirement from 4m to 5.03m to allow the retention of a 32' x 36' pole barn on the property at Avenue. Mr. Carl Cremer and his son Tom were present. Moved by A. Rowe

8 That the Board receive a letter authorizing Carl Cremer to act on behalf of his son Tom. Mr. Cremer advised that the 10-year-old pole barn had been viewed and approved by an Inspector at its original site. As well, the proposed location for the pole barn on the subject site was deemed to be satisfactory by another Inspector and a Building Permit was promised. His son therefore purchased the barn on October 15, 1993, dismantled it and relocated it to the subject site. only later that a Plan Checker advised them of the change in the zone from RS to RA, which imposes height restrictions. The delegation pointed out the structure is intended to accommodate a farm tractor with a three-point hitch used for landscaping and plowing the two-and-a-half acre lands. Moved by E. MacLean Seconded by B. Dack That the letter from T. & A. Hotell of Avenue be received. The delegation responded to concerns raised in the letter from Mr. & Mrs. Hotell, by pointing out their concern was not expressly with the height, which is the subject of the appeal. As well, they pointed out the entire neighbourhood contains numerous similar structures as that proposed. A.H. Hayes of Avenue was present and requested that the structure meet the by-laws. He expressed concern over what usage would be made of the barn, pointing out there had been numerous vehicles located on the subject property in various states of repair. As well, he states the owner has claimed he will use the structure to repair vehicles. Mr. Hayes opposed this for the residential neighbourhood. He suggested that a normal garage door would allow access to the tractor. As well, he expressed concern over a negative effect on property values, due to height encroachments. That the package submitted by Thomas M. Cremer, containing letters from neighbours supporting the appeal, be received. the decision of the Board of Variance that this appeal is not allowed. Appeal No Robinson - Appeal No Robinson - for permission to relax the front yard setback requirement from 7.5m to 6.4m to allow the construction of a single family residence with veranda at Avenue. Mr. & Mrs. Robinson were present and advised the Board they were aware of setbacks upon purchase of the property, however, were not aware that the setback would apply to the porch. In discussion, it was noted the porch includes support elements for the wraparound porch roof, which is not part of the principal roof. The delegation confirmed they have purchased the plan at a cost of $1,500. Their hardship is in their desire not to push the house further back into the rear yard, thus reducing usable space. In reviewing the appeal, it was noted that it has been incorrectly notified at 6.4 metres when it should have been notified at 5.84 metres. The appellant chose to withdraw the appeal to permit resubmission at a subsequent meeting.

9 Appeal No Clapp/Watkins - Appeal No Clapp/Watkins - for permission to relax the east side yard setback requirement from 4.5m to 3.7m, to relax the west side yard setback requirement from 4.5m to 1.52m, to relax the front yard setback requirement from 7.5m to 7.3m, to relax the rear yard setback requirement from 7.5m to 7.3m and to relax the site coverage requirement from 20% to 33% to allow the construction of a family dwelling at Zero Avenue. A. Clapp and S. Watkins were present to discuss their plans to build their own home on the subject property. The delegation pointed out the lot is only 53 feet x 102 feet, with zoning requirements of the RA One Acre Zone imposed. They request a front yard relaxation to keep the house in line with other houses on the street; an east side yard relaxation to permit a driveway and access to the rear yard; and west, yard relaxation, rear yard relaxation and site coverage relaxation to enable the couple's dwelling to fit on the small lot. As well, they have removed the proposed sundeck from the rear of the dwelling. In response to a question concerning the southwest corner where it appears posts are intended to support a roof, the delegation stated they believed that this portion is included in the site coverage proposed in the appeal. The delegation advised they purchased their land in September of In response to a question concerning their having checked into the requirements of the zone at the time of purchase, they stated they had looked at homes in the area and planned to conform with these. noted the neighbour to the west has a home of equal size to the home proposed by the appellants. As well, the delegation displayed photographs of neighbouring homes with setbacks of less than 15 feet on both sides. They advised they have spoken with the two side yard neighbours, who are both in support of their appeal. Karen Bickel of Street was present and expressed concern that the house is too big for the lot. She stated that when she purchased her own home, she did so with the intention of achieving privacy and light into her property. The proposed structure will affect both of these aspects. That a letter from M.L. Emberg of Zero Avenue, opposing the appeal, be received. the decision of the Board of Variance that this appeal is not allowed. Appeal No Mercier - Appeal No Mercier - for permission to relax the rear yard setback requirement from 1.8m to.99m to allow the retention of a storage shed/woodshed on the property at Avenue. Mr. & Mrs. Mercier were present concerning their sheds, which have been in place for 30 years. Mr. Mercier explained that, at the request of his neighbour, he sold off the back half of his property to enable the neighbour to consolidate and subdivide. A condition of his approval was that he would be enabled to retain his sheds. Only once the subdivision was proceeding was he notified of the requirement to remove the shed. Mr. Mercier indicated the sheds are used for the storage of lawn mowers, outboard motor and garden tools. Although the shed presently crosses the property line, if the appeal is approved he will remove the offending portion of the structure to achieve a setback to the mutual property line of 3 feet, 8 inches. D. Hoey of the Planning Department exited the meeting briefly and returned to confirm that registration of the property has occurred under LMP

10 the decision of the Board of Variance that this appeal be allowed. D. OTHER COMPETENT BUSINESS 1. Corporate Report Item No. R311 Board of Variance Application Fee The Board members discussed Corporate Report Item No. R311, which authorizes a $200 application fee to the Board of Variance. They discussed the possibility of a provision for refunds and outlined a few situations where this may be considered, including the following: (a) Where an appeal proceeds and it is discovered that a covenant under Section 215 of the Land Titles Act forbids the Board's jurisdiction; (b) Where an appellant withdraws an appeal (a cutoff date for withdrawal and refund should be considered); and (c) Where a Board of Variance decision is to deny and an appellant proceeds to Development Variance Permit, will the Board of Variance fee apply towards the Development Variance Permit cost? Moved by E. MacLean Seconded by M. Cooper That J. Turner, Administrative Assistant, be authorized to consult with the City Clerk to discuss the implications of the Board of Variance fee, and that the Chairman of the Board be consulted as well on this matter. 2. Memo from Risk Manager Board of Variance Decisions The Board members discussed a memo submitted to the City Clerk from the Risk Manager, requesting that the Board of Variance decisions take into account safety hazards. 3. Board of Variance Seminar - Burnaby Hosting (Minutes of Board of Variance Meeting of November 16/93) The Board expressed the opinion that the motion to Council concerning the Burnaby Board of Variance Seminar should have been dealt with individually. 4. Zoning By-laws The Board members discussed their concerns with respect to the following: Zoning By-law 12000, Part 4, Section H - Board of Variance: to determine whether there is any place for this section in the new Zoning By-law. Zoning By-law 12000, Part 4, Section H - Board of Variance Subsection 2, which makes reference to 30 days: to determine whether the 30-day limitation, which appears to restrict access to the Board, should exist in the Zoning By-law.

11 Zoning By-law 12000, Part 4, Section H - Board of Variance Subsection 2, which makes reference to "any decision complained of": to clarify whose decision this section refers to. Board of Variance By-law 6477, Section 11, Subsection A, which makes reference to 30 days: to determine whether this should be included in the Board of Variance By-law. Moved by E. MacLean Seconded by M. Cooper That the Chairman take action, with the Board's Solicitor, to clarify the following points and to seek a written opinion: Zoning By-law 12000, Part 4, Section H - Board of Variance: to determine whether there is any place for this section in the new Zoning By-law. Zoning By-law 12000, Part 4, Section H - Board of Variance Subsection 2, which makes reference to 30 days: to determine whether the 30-day limitation, which appears to restrict access to the Board, should exist in the Zoning By-law. Zoning By-law 12000, Part 4, Section H - Board of Variance Subsection 2, which makes reference to "any decision complained of": to clarify whose decision this section refers to. Board of Variance By-law 6477, Section 11, Subsection A, which makes reference to 30 days: to determine whether this should be included in the Board of Variance By-law. 5. Jurisdiction of the Board of Variance Regarding Non-Conforming Use The Board members were requested to read the relevant sections of the Municipal Act (970(1)) covering the jurisdiction of the Board of Variance and non-conforming use. This item will be on the agenda for discussion at the January 1994 meeting Meeting Schedule Moved by A. Rowe Seconded by B. Dack That the 1994 Meeting Schedule be approved as circulated. 7. Solicitor's Response - Landscaping (Application ) That the Solicitor's response concerning the jurisdiction of the Board of Variance regarding landscaping be received. C. ADOPTION OF MINUTES Moved by E. MacLean

12 Seconded by B. Dack That the minutes of the Board of Variance meeting of November 16, 1993, be adopted. E. NEXT MEETING The next meeting of the Board of Variance will be held on Tuesday, January 18, 1993, at 9:00 a.m. F. ADJOURNMENT Seconded by B. Dack That the Board of Variance meeting do now adjourn. The Board of Variance meeting adjourned at 3:03 p.m. CLKMIN 3417