Board of Variance Minutes

Transcription

1 Board of Variance Minutes Executive Boardroom City Hall Avenue Surrey, B.C. TUESDAY, APRIL 16, 2002 Time: 9:00 a.m. Present: Chairperson - M. Cooper D. Cutler B. Dack G. Friend J. Grenier Staff Present: J. MacKenzie Manager, Residential Section - Planning & Development D. Hoey Planning Technician, Area Planning & Development Division - Planning & Development K. Miller Administrative Assistant, Legislative Services C. Bonneville Administrative Assistant, Legislative Services A. TABLED APPEALS Appeal No Roger & Laura Barnes For permission to vary east side yard setback requirements from 3 m to 1.65 m; vary lot coverage requirement from 25.0% to 25.6% to allow construction of a single car garage addition; and vary west flanking yard setback requirements from 7.5 m to 6.2 m to allow retention of the existing dwelling at A Avenue. Roger & Laura Barnes, the Appellants, were in attendance to discuss the appeal. The Planning Technician confirmed the following information: Prior to January 1991, the RHG zone and the flanking side yard set back were 3.6m. Following amendment of By-law No (January 14, 1991), the setback was changed to 7.5m. Subsequent amendments were adopted under By-law No It appears that the home was built to conform to the previous by-law, therefore the property may be considered as legally non-conforming. The permit was issued correctly in order to conform to the previous by-law, as non-conforming use must be identified prior to adoption of the relative by-law. That in order for the Planning and Development Department to provide additional information, that the meeting recess at 9:10 a.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:19 a.m. The Manager, Residential Section advised: The application for the permit was received on January 7, 1992 and approved on January 10, 1992; As the By-law was amended in 1991, the house was constructed following amendment of the By-law, therefore requiring a setback of 7.5 m. Customary practice of the City of Surrey is to allow a one-year period of grace to take advantage of the required setbacks. The Board expressed concerns relative to City staff's practice which grants a period of grace to appellants in view of

2 the current legislation. Further concerns were expressed relative to the appellants' position given the juxtaposition of the City of Surrey's practice, and the Provincial legislation. Planning and Development staff were requested to provide confirmation of the staff practice of providing a oneyear's period of grace. There followed a discussion regarding the necessity of clarifying the legality of the primary issuance of the building permit. The Manager, Residential Section confirmed that a garage could be constructed in the appellants' backyard. The Appellants provided correspondence from nine of the eight adjacent property owners, support of the Appeal. The Chair then read the correspondence. That the Board of Variance receive the following items of correspondence supporting Appeal No : 1. Linda and Roger Bates A Street 2. Gary Gill A Avenue 3. Carolin Hanak Avenue 4. Sheila Boulton A Street 5. Deb and Wayne McKinnon A Avenue 6. Brian and Linda Headland A Avenue V4P 2J8 7. R. Threlkeld A Street 8. Lisle and Sheila Jory B Street The Planning Technician confirmed that the building scheme registered on title is null and void.

3 portion of the appeal. That the requested variance be divided to address only the retention That Appeal No be allowed, thereby allowing a variance to the west flanking yard setback requirements from 7.5m to 6.2 m, to allow retention of the existing dwelling at A Avenue. Moved by B. Dack That Appeal No be allowed, thereby allowing a variance to the east side yard setback requirements from 3m, to 1.65m; and that a variance be permitted for the lot coverage requirement from 25.0% to 25.6% to allow construction of a single car garage addition. the decision of the Board of Variance that the Appeal be allowed. B. NEW APPEALS Appeal No Gilbert & Gertrude Combs For permission to relax the west side yard setback requirements from 4.5 m to 3.96 m to allow retention of an existing single family dwelling; and to relax the height requirement from 4 m to 5 m to allow construction of an accessory building at Avenue. Gilbert Combs, the Appellant, was in attendance to discuss the appeal. Moved by G. Friend That the Board of Variance receive Mr. Heinz Herring, Street, supporting the appeal related to Appeal No The Manager, Field Inspections, confirmed that the permit was issued under the previous by-law no. 5942, which required a 6m west side yard setback; The Appellant provided the following information: Description of the original building, aged 32 years; Description of carport, to accommodate a fifth-wheel recreation vehicle; Moved by B. Dack That Appeal No be allowed. the decision of the Board of Variance that the Appeal be allowed. Appeal No Michael & Susan Warren For permission to relax the height requirement from 4.0 m to 4.6 m to allow construction of a detached garage at Street.

4 Michael Warren, the Appellant, was in attendance to discuss the appeal. Moved by J. Grenier That the Board of Variance receive the three following pieces of correspondence supporting Appeal no : 1. Mr. and Mrs. Stutt A Street V3S 4K3 2. Gary and Susan Wilson A Street V3S 4K3 3. Wayne DeCoffe and Jill Rabin Street V3S 4L2 The Manager, Field Inspections, confirmed the following information: A permit was previously issued for the desired building with the provision that the height be restricted to 4m unless the roof and construction materials are the same as the principal building thereby allowing 5m additional structure; Should the Appellant change the exterior of his home in the future, it would require a permit and would be assessed; It has not been determined that the property is being operated in accordance with the zoning by-law; and The current permit requires that vinyl siding be used, with no control on colour; The Appellant provided the following information: Cedar siding to provide durable weather-proofing; The structure is meant to accommodate a 27 foot travel trailer; and Due to high winds in the area, the appellant does not want to use shingles; Concerns regarding the lack of durability of vinyl siding, related to his children playing in the sideyard; Repairs and restores own vehicles as a hobby; and The roof drainage is piped directly into the storm sewer system which may result in less water on the property. The Chair expressed concerns regarding the apparent lack of hardship on the part of the appellant. Moved by B, Dack That Appeal No be denied. the decision of the Board of Variance that the Appeal be denied. Appeal No Robert & Tanya Sonnenberg For permission to relax the west side yard setback requirements from 4.5 m to m to allow construction of a bedroom addition and retention of the existing house at Avenue. Robert and Tanya Sonnenberg, the Appellants, were in attendance to discuss the appeal, and confirmed that the house

5 is rectangular in shape, therefore, the appellants want to expand to the west side and are restricted by height. The Appellants further stated that they wished to construct their childrens' bedrooms close to their own, for reasons of security. The Appellants stated that they wished to retain old growth cedar on the property and would also prefer to retain the front window. The Manager, Field Inspections, confirmed the following information: The Appellants are proposing a renovation and addition to their home; It is a legally non-conforming building (under by-law no. 5492); Presented a copy of the original building permit; and The permitted size requirement would not be an issue in this case. The Appellants made the following statements: The current structure is rectangular in shape and still on septic field, thus preventing from construction at the rear of the property; Old growth cedar which would preferably be retained; Preference to retain front window; and Preference to have bedrooms on one side of the house. In response to a query from a member of the Board, the Secretary then read section from the Local Government Act. Before the motion was put, it was related to Appeal no That Appeal No be allowed Withdrawn Moved by B. Dack Seconded by G. Friend That the Board of Variance received correspondence from the Appellants That Appeal No be allowed. the decision of the Board of Variance that the Appeal be allowed. The meeting recessed at 10:53 a.m. and reconvened at 10:56 a.m. C. ADOPTION OF MINUTES A member of the Board advised that the first page of the minutes should be amended where is states principal, it should state principle. approved as amended. That the minutes of the Board of Variance meeting of March 19, 2002 be

6 D. OTHER COMPETENT BUSINESS 1. The notification letter to be approved by the Board and initialed by the Chair. 2. Appointments of new members. There followed a discussion relative to outstanding appointments by the Province. E. NEXT MEETING The next meeting of the Board of Variance will be held on Tuesday, May 21, 2002 at 9:00 a.m. F. ADJOURNMENT The Board of Variance meeting adjourned at 11:12 a.m. Chair