Board of Variance Minutes

Transcription

1 Board of Variance Minutes Council Chamber City Hall Avenue Surrey, B.C. THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 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 L. Pitcairn Planner, Area Planning & Development Division C. Bonneville Secretary A. TABLED APPEALS 1. Appeal No Manuel & Denia 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 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 Secretary advised of the wrong hearing date being provided in the notification to the neighbours. The Chair advised that the neighbours were not notified properly therefore the application is required to be tabled for renotification. The Appellant advised that he had canvassed the neighbours and there was no objection to the requested variance. He further advised that they are unable to use the balcony until the requested variance is approved. Moved by E. Vantol That Appeal No be tabled for renotification to the adjacent property owners. the decision of the Board of Variance that the Appeal be tabled. B. NEW APPEALS 2. Appeal No Gladys Lockhart For permission to relax the flanking yard setback requirement from 7.5 m to m to allow construction of a swimming pool at B Avenue. h:\bov\minutes\2005\min bov doc seh 07/05/10 13:48 PM Page 1

2 Mr. Bud Lockhart, the Agent for the Appellant, was in attendance to discuss the appeal. That the letter authorizing Mr. Bud Lockhart (son), to speak on behalf of Ms. Gladys Lockhart, registered owner, be received. October 8, 2005, be received. Moved by E. Vantol That the letter from the Appellant, dated The lot is zoned RH-G, Half Acre Residential Gross Density Zone. The Zoning By-law stipulates that swimming pools must be sited in accordance with the minimum setbacks for accessory structures. In this zone, the minimum setback to an accessory structure from a flanking side yard is 7.5 meters. The Appellant advised that: His mother is 88 and requires a five-foot in depth therapeutic exercise pool. The location of the pool will be closer to the flanking yard property line, otherwise it would interfere with the construction that is already in place, there are numerous concrete walkways and stairs, and mature landscaping make it impossible to locate the pool in an alternate location. We have approached the neighbours and had a petition signed. h:\bov\minutes\2005\min bov doc Page 2

3 Moved by J. Gorman That the petition showing no opposition with the following 14 signatures: 1. Binder Gill, B Avenue; 2. Bonnie Weltman, B Avenue; 3. C & S Henwick, B Avenue; 4. G & G Gill, B Avenue; 5. Beeru Mannan, Street; 6. Wendy Kuo, Street; 7. Golru Ashraf, Street; 8. Sandra Shin, Street; 9. Frank Kazemt, B Avenue; 10. Mark Sorial, B Avenue; 11. Lisa Lin, B Avenue; 12. Jennifer Huang, Street; 13. Eun K Chin, Avenue; and 14. Yiu Wen-Luang, B Avenue, be received. There was a brief discussion regarding the fencing required around the pool, and the Appellant advised that there would be a four-foot high fence enclosing the pool that would be located inside the 9-foot hedge. Seconded by E. Vantol That Appeal No be allowed, as there is a hardship based on the layout of the lot and landscaping on the site. the decision of the Board of Variance that the Appeal be allowed. 3. Appeal No Bradley James For permission to relax the rear yard setback requirement from 1.8 m to 0.7 m; relax the lot coverage requirement from 40% to 46.5% to allow construction of additions to both the house and garage at A Avenue. Mr. Bradley James, the Appellant, was in attendance to discuss the appeal. h:\bov\minutes\2005\min bov doc Page 3

4 That the letter of opposition from Mr. and Mrs. Vithalbhai, Avenue, dated November 11, 2005, be received. received. Seconded by G. Friend That the letter from the Appellant be The lot is zoned Single Family Residential (RF). The history of the site is described in the City information attached to the August 18, 2005 Board appeal. It is understood that the requested rear yard setback is.7 meters. It appears that the proposed height for the accessory building may exceed 5 meters. The height for the accessory building would be limited to 5 meters (at best) and would require that the accessory building roof slope and construction materials match that of the principal building. This could not be established with the information provided. The Appellant advised: This proposal will tear down the addition to the existing garage and a sundeck addition will be constructed attached to the house. The garage was bigger than the house, however the sundeck will make the house larger then the garage. A plan checker approved that the height and grade would meet the requirements of the bylaw. Initially did not know that a building permit was required and a stop work order was posted on the proposed building. The existing house is rented out; I do not live at this property. The purpose of the additional garage is for my hobby as a car collector, I have difficulty working on car as I get dizzy and out of sorts. My psychiatrist advised that I should get a hoist and now require a building for the hoist. A member of the Board requested clarification as to whether a sundeck will be counted in the square footage of the house. The Manager, Residential Section stated that the City considers the site coverage and floor area when determining the size of a principal building in comparison to a accessory building, the deck contributes to the site coverage of the principal building. In review of the photographs of the site, it is unclear as to how a deck could be added as the rear door is at grade. This house has more than one storey and therefore is larger in floor area then the accessory building. h:\bov\minutes\2005\min bov doc Page 4

5 The Appellant advised that the rear of the house steps down to a sidewalk and the deck only has to be two feet high and there is a slope within the property, if digging down is required to install the deck then that will be done. The Planner clarified the definition of Floor Area Ratio as stated in the By-law. The Appellant stated that the floor area ratio is larger then the garage because there are two floors within the house. A Board member requested clarification of a home occupation. The Manager, Residential Section stated that this is hobby and he is working on his own vehicles. There was concern for the use of the accessory building once the property was sold and the effect that use may have on the neighbors. The Chair clarified that a matter of by-law infraction is a matter for by-law enforcement. In response to a question the Appellant advised that he has not removed the addition to the existing garage. Clarification of the overhang on the proposed garage was requested, and it was stated that a.6 overhang would be required from the.7 variance. In response to a question from the Board the Manager, Residential Section stated that the existing garage would not meet the requirement of the by-law with the removal of the addition, the site shows the existing garage at 1.67 m from the property line and the required setback is 1.8m. The Appellant advised that it is very vague as to where the rear property line is located. The Appellant advised that he initially was going to locate the new building at the property line and moved it in 3 feet when neighbour expressed objection to the location. A member of the Board expressed their concern for how much the natural grade of a property can change to accommodate the height of a building. The Manager, Residential Section stated that the bylaw specifies from the finish grade, placing fill around the outside of a finished building will not change the height of the building. When someone is proposing to lower the grade to accommodate a deck it is a site-specific interpretation. There is concern that lowering the grade to accommodate a deck would not be feasible as it is very close to the garage. You may not be able to access the garage with the location of the deck. The Appellant advised that the distance between the garage and the deck is 3.05 meters and further the property slopes in two different locations and the grade is very close to what it needs to be for the proposed additions. Seconded by h:\bov\minutes\2005\min bov doc Page 5

6 clarification of heights and grades. That Appeal No be tabled for The above motion received no seconder. That Appeal No be denied as the hardship is to the neighbours and the single-family zoning requires protection, the residence is not owner occupied and there are serious concerns that the application is manipulating the bylaw. with G. Friend and E. Vantol opposed. the decision of the Board of Variance that the Appeal be denied. 3. Appeal No Dan Millar For permission to relax the rear yard setback requirement from 7.5 m to 3 m to allow construction of a single family dwelling at Street. Mr. Dan Millar, the Appellant, was in attendance to discuss the appeal. J. Gorman removed himself from the meeting, at 10:11 a.m., due to conflict of interest as he works in the same realty office as Mr. Millar, the Appellant. received. That the letter from the Appellant be The lot is zoned CD under By-law 15407B. The minimum front and flanking side yard setbacks are 7.5 meters. The minimum rear is 7.5 meters and the minimum side yard setback is 3 meters. The definition of a front lot line is the the shortest lot line abutting a highway. The determination of the front of the lot is only relevant in determining the applicable yards and setback and has no bearing on the addressing or the orientation of a dwelling designed for the lot. In other words, the front of the house does not have to face the front of the lot. The Appellant advised: We were not aware of the bylaw when we designed the house. The lot slopes from west to east, with the east being the lower side, if we were to face the house north, the garage would be 7 feet below the home. Turning the house to the other side still meets the required setback of the bylaw. h:\bov\minutes\2005\min bov doc Page 6

7 Clarification was required as to the front of the property and the bylaw s definition of the front lot line. The Appellant advised that this is a new subdivision, and that they have adjusted the design to fit the site. The Manager, Residential Section advised that on page 141 the site plan shows a dashed line which indicates the ridge line, therefore the left side of the site would drain to 141 Street and the other side to the swale located on the adjacent lot. If the building were sited in accordance to the bylaw then the rear yard would be along the ridge line. Switching of the front yard will allow the owner to access the basement at the rear yard level. That Appeal No be allowed, as the bylaw determines the definition of the front yard and all the required setbacks are being maintained if the front yard was defined otherwise. the decision of the Board of Variance that the Appeal be allowed. J. Gorman returned to the meeting at 10:31 a.m. and the meeting recessed. The meeting reconvened at 10:48 a.m. with all members in attendance. 4. Appeal No Gladys Javorsky For permission to relax the front yard setback requirement from 18 m to m to allow construction of a workshop/garage at Linton Way. Mr. Denis Brown, the Agent, was in attendance to discuss the appeal. h:\bov\minutes\2005\min bov doc Page 7

8 That the letter authorizing Mr. Denis Brown to speak on behalf of Ms. Gladys Javorsky, registered owner, be received. October 25, 2005, be received. Moved by J. Gorman Seconded by E. Vantol That the letter from the Appellant, dated The lot is zoned RF. The minimum front yard setback for an accessory building is 18 meters. The Appellant advised: Requesting relaxation of the front yard setback to construct a workshop. At rear of the property there is a flower bed and lawn that we would like to keep in tact, and at the front there is existing lawn. The existing accessory building is a 8x12 garden shed with a wood floor sitting on the ground that is rotting away. The existing small garden shed is used to store tools, lawnmower, yard items, landscaping items and not very useful due to it s limited size. A larger area is required for storage. A member of the Board asked if the house was attached to the principal building would it meet the by-law required setback. The Manager, Residential Section confirmed that the required sideyard setback would be 1.2m and also confirmed that if the accessory building was attached to the principal house it would conform to the required setback. A member of the Board expressed their concern that the required setback is a large setback for an urban lot; it is almost half the lot. That Appeal No be allowed based on the finding that as the zoning applies to this urban lot the requested variance seems reasonable. the decision of the Board of Variance that the Appeal be allowed. h:\bov\minutes\2005\min bov doc Page 8

9 5. Appeal No Dennis & Kelly Jangula For permission to relax the rear side yard setback requirement from 7.5 m to 5.90 m;relax the south side yard setback requirement from 1.8 m to 1.09 m; to allow construction of a new home at A Street. Mr. Dennis Jangula, the Appellant, was in attendance to discuss the appeal. The Secretary advised of the wrong address being stated on the notification to the neighbours. The Appellant advised that if tabled to the December 15 meeting there is a further delay as to when the builder can start, he further requested that the Board consider hearing the appeal sooner. That Appeal No be tabled for renotification and heard at a special Board hearing schedule for December 1, the decision of the Board of Variance that the Appeal be tabled. 6. Appeal No Robert & Carol Storness-Bliss For permission to relax the rear yard setback requirement from 7.5 m to 5 m to allow construction of a hot tub/sun room enclosure at Friesian Drive. Mr. Graeme Huguet, the Agent, and Mr. Robert and Carol Storness-Bliss, the Appellants, were in attendance to discuss the appeal. That the letter authorizing Mr. Graeme Huguet, to speak on behalf of the Mr. and Mrs. Storness-Bliss, the registered owners, be received. That the letters from the agent dated, October 24, 2005 and October 31, 2005, be received. h:\bov\minutes\2005\min bov doc Page 9

10 The lot is zoned Single Family Residential (RF). The standard minimum rear yard setback is 7.5 meters. The required variance would be to reduce the minimum rear yard setback to 5.01 meters. It is suggested that an application for a relaxation to 5.0 meters would be appropriate. There is an option for a variable rear yard setback in the RF Zone, however, it is the City s position that where the requirements specified for the variance option have not been met the option is not applicable and the standard minimum setback becomes the default requirement. Such is the case here. The appellant should also be advised that an interior hot tub installation, such as is proposed, will required the installation of mechanical ventilation as designed by a professional engineer. The Agent advised: We are asking for a variance from 7.5 meters to 5.02 meters to build a hot tub room. This location provides for the most privacy. If the building were detached it would be built closer to the neighbours yard, and therefore any noise would be closer to the neighbour. There was a sidebar discussion in which the Appellant presented photographs of the existing, proposed and context of the area. Clarification was required regarding the variance; the Appellant confirmed that the requested variance is from 7.5 meters to 5 meters. Moved by J. Gorman That Appeal No be allowed. the decision of the Board of Variance that the Appeal be allowed. 7. Appeal No Lorne & Roxy Armstrong For permission to relax the side yard setback requirement from 4.5 m to 3.0 m to allow construction of a nook addition and to bring into conformity the existing single family dwelling at Coulthard Road. Mr. Graeme Huguet, the Agent and Mr. and Mrs. Armstrong, the Appellants, were in attendance to discuss the appeal. h:\bov\minutes\2005\min bov doc Page 10

11 Moved by J. Gorman That the letter authorizing Mr. Graeme Huguet, to speak on behalf of the Mr. and Mrs. Armstrong, the registered owners, be received. 23, 2005 be received. That the letter from the agent dated, October The lot is zoned RH. In 1985, when the dwelling was built, the lot was under By-law 5942 and the lot was zoned R-1. At that time the minimum sideyard setback was 3.0 meters. In 1991, the requirement was changed the minimum sideyard being changed to 4.5 meters through By-law This change was carried through to By-law and the RH Zone. So, the dwelling as exists is legally nonconforming. The Agent advised: The Armstrongs would like to add a small addition to their kitchen in line with the non-conforming structure. A portion of the existing deck is over living space in the basement, and during construction, the deck was partially covered by cantilevered roof trusses designed for that purpose. Since that time the owners have decided that the current deck does not meet their requirements and they wish to enclose the existing deck and the associated jog in the house, and to rebuild the deck to 3 meters wide across off the rear of their home towards the south. There was a sidebar discussion in which the Appellant presented photographs of the existing, proposed and context of the area. Clarification was requested as to when a structure does not become nonconforming and the Planner confirmed that if a structure does not exist for 6 months or longer then it is no longer legally non-conforming and would have to conform to the current bylaw requirements. Seconded by G. Friend That Appeal No be allowed to provide an extension of the existing non-conformity. h:\bov\minutes\2005\min bov doc Page 11

12 the decision of the Board of Variance that the Appeal be allowed. 8. Appeal No Wendy Breckner For permission to relax the rear yard setback requirement from 1.8 m to 1.27 m to allow retention of a garage/workshop at Avenue. Mr. and Mrs. Breckner, the Appellants, were in attendance to discuss the appeal. October 28, 2005, be received. Moved by E. Vantol That the letter from the Appellants, dated The lot is zoned RA. The minimum required rear yard setback is 1.8 meters for an accessory building. The Appellant advised: This is not an appeal to construct a new building; this building has been on the property for twelve years. This accessory building looks similar to the house. There is no building permit issued that we can find and we need to legalize the building in order to finish it with electricity and heat. The building is useless without electricity and heat. There are no neighbours to the rear property line as this is agricultural land. The Manager, Residential Section advised that the height of the structure would be checked prior to issuing a building permit. That Appeal No be allowed, based on the finding of hardship, and further that the structure existed when the property was purchased, the property is a large parcel, and the variance will not affect anyone adjacent to the site. the decision of the Board of Variance that the Appeal be allowed. h:\bov\minutes\2005\min bov doc Page 12

13 C. ADOPTION OF MINUTES Moved by J. Gorman Seconded by E. Vantol That the minutes of the Board of Variance meeting of October 20, 2005 be approved as circulated. D. OTHER COMPETENT BUSINESS 1. The notification letter were approved by the Board and initialed by the Chair Board of Variance Meeting Schedule. schedule be approved as circulated. Moved by J. Gorman That the 2006 Board of Variance meeting E. NEXT MEETING The next meeting of the Board of Variance will be held on Thursday, December 1, 2005 at 9:00 a.m. F. ADJOURNMENT The Board of Variance meeting adjourned at 12:00 p.m. Margaret Jones, City Clerk Marie Cooper - Chairperson h:\bov\minutes\2005\min bov doc Page 13