In response to a question, Mr. Squair stated he began building in Surrey in August of 1988.

Transcription

1 Tuesday, Committee Room Municipal Hall Avenue Surrey, B.C. Tuesday, Time: 9:00 a.m. Present: R. Reimer - Chairman; Board Members E. McLean, J. Weber, M. Cooper and R. Beddis. Staff: Casey van den Broek - Superindentent of Building Division, Pat Dove - Development Officer, J. Turner - Administrative Assistant. A. TABLED APPEALS: Appeal No Groeneveld - Appeal No Groeneveld - for permission to relax the siting requirement to allow construction of a garage in the side yard at B Avenue. Mr. Groeneveld was present and advised the Board the proposed structure meets the requirements for height, site coverage and side and rear yard setbacks. He stated that if the existing 22 year old house had a normal setback, the proposed garage would not be a problem, and stated that although he considered an attached garage, he prefers a free standing garage. He then stated that the garage and house roof lines would be in line. Appeal No A - Woodbridge Homes Inc. - Appeal No A - Woodbridge Homes Inc. - for permission to relax the side yard setback requirements from 1.8m to 1.35m to allow retention of the dining room hutch alcove at A Avenue. Mr. Al Squair of Woodbridge Homes was present and stated that due to the poor quality of the original plans, he supplied his framer with the set of plans from which he had neglected to delete the hutch. He added the hutch has no windows and is on the main floor of the house, which is 1,265 square metres in size. In response to a question, Mr. Squair stated he began building in Surrey in August of Appeal No Petrovich/J.L. Excavating - Appeal No Petrovich/J.L. Excavating - for permission to relax the rear yard setback requirements from 7.5m to 3.6m to allow retention of the existing home in a subdivision at Avenue. Mr. C. Hopes of Avenue was present and advised the Board that he is also representing another neighbour in the area who is opposed to the appeal. Mr. Hopes then discussed and clarified the intent of the appeal.

2 C. Arychuk of McElhanney Engineering Ltd. entered the meeting following the hearing of Appeal No and was heard concerning Appeal No as follows. Mr. Arychuk advised the Board that new drawings submitted since the Board of Variance meeting of February 21, 1989 correctly indicate the subject lot within the subdivision. This lot is a single large lot with future potential for a subdivision into two lots. He stated the existing garage will be removed. Appeal No Bellavance - Appeal No Bellavance - for permission to relax the side yard setback requirements from 4m to 1.22m to allow construction of service bays on existing service station and to relax the site coverage from 30% to 40.9% at Avenue. Mr. Bellavance and Bob Ferguson of Grafic Square were present and advised the Board that the necessary papers for consolidation of the two lots should be in the Land Registry Office on the date of the Board of Variance hearing. They added that lot consolidation had not previously been necessary. Mr. Bellavance stated that he has met with the Permits and License Department and discussed the use of the lane. He indicated the lane is at present not developed and is used for storage. Mr. Bellavance then discussed the dimensions of the existing building and of the proposed addition, stating that the doors from the extension will access to the 20 foot lane to reduce the noise factor to residences to the rear, and that there will be a normal turning space in this area for vehicles. He added that the the setback from the addition will be 4 feet from the lane which is a similar setback to neighbouring houses and is permitted under By-law. In discussing relocation of the proposed addition, Mr. Bellavance stated he prefers the area proposed to permit car bays to align and to leave intact the existing caretaker's suite which has been on site as long as the business has been in operation. B. NEW APPEALS: Appeal No Frederiksen & Jartved - Appeal No Frederiksen & Jartved - for permission to relax the side yard setback requirements from 3.6m to 3.5m and the rear yard setback requirements from 7.5m to 6.8m to allow construction of a dwelling with hutch and breakfast nook at Willow Grove. Mr. Frederiksen and Mr. Jartved were present and advised the Board that they are building a 1,784 square foot house with a 270 square foot room over the garage. They added that a book plan was adjusted by one foot to avoid encroachment, but found the hutch encroaches nevertheless. With respect to the cantilevered nook, the appellants felt that shortening the house would impact negatively on the look of the house. Further, they stated that the house plan was chosen as the lot is high to permit roof lines of the subject rancher to align with other roof lines in the area. They added the neighbours indicated no objection to the proposed appeal. Appeal No Caldwell - Appeal No Caldwell - for permission to relax the height requirements from one-storey to allow construction of a two-storey accessory structure at Street.

3 Mr. Caldwell was present and advised the Board that he built a 20 foot by 24 foot double garage with storage above for car parts in order to safeguard them from vandalism. He added the garage has a patio door at the second floor level to a deck which will be railed. He stated he intends to install vinyl siding to finish the garage attractively. The Board received a letter from J. Pechuch of Street and from B. Sanghera of A Avenue indicating no objection to the proposed appeal. Appeal No Kershaw - Appeal No Kershaw - for permission to relax the side yard setback requirements from 1m to.81m and relaxation of the rear yard setback requirements from 1.8m to.81m to allow retention of storage shed at Street. Mr. Kershaw was present and submitted letters from J. Carriere of A Street, J. Leystra of Street, B. Peylor of Street, B. Bouthot of Street, R. Lessard of Street and J. Nichol of Street, expressing no objection to the proposed appeal. Mr. Kershaw then stated he began construction of the addition to an existing 10 foot by 12 foot shed without permit as he was unaware of the need for a permit. The shed, to be used for storage, is now a 30 foot by 12 foot structure. In response to a question concerning a right-of-way, Mr. Kershaw stated that the Department of Waterworks indicated that the shed may remain over the right-of-way as long as it remains on blocks and is movable. Appeal No Britannia Homes - Appeal No Britannia Homes - for permission to relax the side yard setback requirements from 1.8m to 1.5m to allow retention of a house with hutch at A Avenue. Mike Field was present and submitted a Contract of Purchase and Sale document which was accepted as proof of purchase by the Board. He then showed an additional document indicating the subject conditions for the sale were removed on February 11, Mr. Field added that he bought the house with a hutch which was shown on the construction plans, then found he needed relaxation. Appeal No Kyle- Appeal No Kyle-Bridge Holdings Ltd. - for permission to relax the side yard setback requirements from 1.8m to1.0m to allow retention of the existing house at Avenue. Gordon Estrada and C. Arychuk of McElhanney Engineering were present and advised the Board that the subdivision is complete and a bond has been posted. They added the subject lot was made larger than usual to allow a normal setback for an existing 30 year old house, but that problems were incurred due to the narrowness of the lot. Mr. Arychuk then stated that development in the area would provide incentive for rebuilding of this house. It was the decision of the Board of Variance that this appeal be tabled to permit the appellant to consult with the Permits and License Department concerning windows in the setback area.

4 Appeal No Muller - Appeal No Muller - for permission to relax the siting requirements to permit a trailer in the front yard and to relax the gross floor area requirement of 80m2 to allow a 98m2 trailer at Street. Mrs. G. Muller was present and advised that Board that she desires the trailer for use by her mother and that the larger sized trailer will be needed as her mother will soon be wheelchair-bound. She added that she was advised by the Permits and License Department to apply to the Board of Variance. She then stated she wants the trailer in the front yard as the rear yard is unsuitable as it is used for cows, playing children and has a pool. She added the trailer will resemble the house and the roof line will have the same pitch as the house. It was the decision of the Board of Variance that this appeal be tabled to allow submission of a legal opinion concerning the jurisdiction of the Board of Variance. Appeal No Vohra - Appeal No Vohra - for permission to relax the rear yard setback requirements from 7.5m to 5.18m to allow construction of the stair and sundeck on dwelling at Avenue. Mr. Vohra, who is purchasing the subject property to occupy, was present and submitted a contract of purchase and sale dated February 1, 1989 which was received by the Board and which was further amended by the removal of subject conditions in a document dated February 4, Mr. Vohra stated the unsymmetrical lot in a cul-de-sac created design difficulties and that the relaxation required is primarily for the stairs to a sundeck. He added the site coverage on the lot is less than 28% and that his rear yard adjoins the rear yard of all his neighbours. The Board received a letter from M. & B. Schroder of Street, M. Halsey of Street, L.H. Simmonds of Street and R. Barrett of Street expressing objection to the proposed appeal. Appeal No Davidson - Appeal No Davidson - for permission to relax the side yard setback requirements from 1.8m to 1.22m to allow retention of a handicap wheelchair lift extension on the dwelling at A Street. Mrs. Davidson was present and advised the Board that her appeal is for a hydraulic lift which is a covered 3 foot by 4 foot box for use by her husband who is wheelchair-bound. Appeal No Ghakal - Appeal No Ghakal - for permission to relax the side yard setback requirements from 1.8m to 1.42m to allow retention of a hutch on the dwelling at A Street. Mr. Gill of Marathon Construction Ltd. was present and submitted a letter of authorization. He stated the encroachment was overlooked by a surveyor and then noticed by the framing inspector. He added the hutch was not deleted from the approved set of plans and noted that the hutch will not protrude beyond a chimney on the same side. Mr. Gill then stated the siting could have been adjusted to correct the encroachment had the siting error been noted earlier. In response to a questions, Mr. Gill stated he is aware of the by-laws and has built in Surrey.

5 Appeal No Sandhu - Appeal No Sandhu - for permission to relax the rear yard setback requirements from 7.5m to 6.4m to allow construction of a sundeck and stairs on the dwelling at A Avenue. Mr. Sandhu and his cousin were present and advised the Board that the sundeck was not on the drawings when application for a permit was made. Mr. Sandhu stated he could legally construct a 4-foot sundeck but desires an 8-foot deck and that his lot has 91 feet in length the short side. Appeal No Bell - Appeal No Bell - for permission to relax the side yard setback requirements from 1.8m to 1.2m to allow retention of the dwelling at Street. Mr. Bell and Mrs. J. Eddington were present and stated the subject property has three easements on three sides of the lot for storm sewers and septic sewer. Mr. Bell added the house was sited to allow it to be in line with other houses on the cul-de-sac and that this would allow more room for a pool in the rear yard, adding that he could construct the pool without the desired relaxation. Mrs. Eddington, who lives in the neighbourhood subdivision and has the listing for Lot 32, expressed no objection to the appeal. Appeal No Dhaliwal - Appeal No Dhaliwal - for permission to relax the rear yard setback requirements from 7.5m to 7.01m to allow construction of a dwelling at Avenue. Mr. Dhaliwal was present and advised that his front property line is flat on the cul-de-sac with a depth of 101 feet, stating this dimension was used by the designer to plan the house. However, he stated that when the lot is measured straight back, the actual depth is only 99 feet, requiring the building to fit within 48 feet of front and rear yard. He added the house is 1,400 square feet on the main floor, has a patio on grade and a bay window off the kitchen which is 13'2". Appeal No Bissonette - Appeal No Bissonette - for permission to relax the height requirements to permit a structure at A Street Mr. & Mrs. Bissonette were present and advised the Board that when applying for a permit, they inquired whether the height of the structure was satisfactory and were granted a permit. It was later realized that an error had been made by the inspector. The appellants submitted letters from Mr. & Mrs. D. Newton of A Street and from S. Syne of A Street stating they do not oppose the appeal, and these were received by the Board. The appellants then added that a shake roof, siding and landscaping will be installed to match the house and that the height of the

6 garage is required for storage of a recreational vehicle. Mr. Grant of A Street was present, discussed the height of recreational vehicles and stated that he is in favour of the appeal. Mr. Green of A Street was present and stated he is in favour of the appeal. Appeal No Gillies - Appeal No Gillies - for permission to relax the rear yard setback requirements from 7.5m to 5.49m to allow construction of a solarium on the dwelling at Avenue. Mr. & Mrs. Gillies were present and advised the Board that they desire a 16 foot by 16 foot aluminum solarium on the south side of the building, indicating there is a green belt behind their lot on the south side. When questioned concerning alternative siting for the solarium, they stated there is insufficient room and that they wish to access the solarium from their back door. Appeal No Murrell - Appeal No Murrell - for permission to relax the rear yard setback requirements from 1.8m to.61m to allow retention of workshop at Street. Mr. Murrell was present and stated that a surveyor inspection indicates that a relaxation of.9 metres rather than the originally requested.61 metres is required. He added the workshop has a frame construction on a concrete foundation. Mr. Murrell then stated that a sloping swale on his property reduces the impact of the relaxation to the neighbouring yard. Appeal No Karis Construction - Appeal No Karis Construction - for permission to relax the front yard setback requirements from 7.5m to 6.69m to allow construction of a single family dwelling at B Street. Mr. Neufeld and Les Wiens of Karis Construction were present and advised the Board they could find no plans which would fit the building envelope on the lot which has a jog in the rear property line and is on a cul-desac. They added they have a customer who wishes to build the desired house plan on the subject lot. They further stated they reduced the size of the house on Lot 188 nearby and felt that two small homes in the area would be detrimental to sales. Appeal No Latimer Developments Ltd. - Appeal No Latimer Developments Ltd. - for permission to relax the front yard setback requirements from 7.5m to 6.1m to allow construction of dwelling at Sundale Close. Herb Mueller of Pacific Development Ltd. was present to speak to the appeal, adding that the owner of the property is out of town. Mr. Mueller stated that the owner wishes to preserve sight lines within the subdivision

7 by constructing a bungalow. He noted that it was difficult to design a three bedroom bungalow within the building envelope. The Board of Variance received a copy of the Contract of Purchase and Sale dated February 7, 1989 as proof of ownership. Appeal No Latimer Developments Ltd. - Appeal No Latimer Developments Ltd. - for permission to relax the front yard setback requirements from 7.5m to 6.07m to allow construction of dwelling at Sundale Close. Herb Mueller of Pacific Developments Ltd. was present and stated that conditions which apply to Appeal No for Sundale Close apply equally to the subject Appeal No Appeal No Meerdink - Appeal No Meerdink - for permission to relax the rear yard setback requirements from 18m to 9m and relaxation of the siting requirements for accessory structures in the rear yard to allow retention of a garden shed at A Street. Mr. Meerdink was present and advised the Board of an existing easement on the north side yard across the tip of his pie-shaped lot. He added that his framer, who submitted the application to the Permits Department, was told that the north property line is classified as the rear yard; therefore the house was sited to the side of the lot and a shed was constructed beside the house. Appeal No Kang - Appeal No Kang - for permission to relax the side yard setback requirements from 13.5m to 10.6m and relaxation of the front yard setback requirements from 12m to 3.1m to allow retention of a well covering shed at Avenue. Mr. Kang was present and advised the Board that an appeal was previously allowed for construction of a shed over his well, pump, and an 1,100 gallon water supply for his house. He added that the side yard relaxation is now required. Mr. Kang stated that siding is installed on the subject shed which needs only to be painted. Mr. Berger of Street was present to oppose the appeal, stating that the shed is an eyesore and is too close to the intersection. With respect to Mr. Berger's comments concerning a road allowance, the Chairman advised that the appeal will not affect the property line. Appeal No Carthy - Appeal No Carthy - for permission to relax the front yard setback requirements from 7.5m to 3.75m to allow construction of a dwelling at 2528 Bayview Street. Bob Ferguson of Grafic Square was present on behalf of the owners and advised the Board the house will be

8 constructed at the foot of the hill on steep property. He stated the house will follow the profile of the grade and requires a retaining wall on grade, adding that they are endeavouring to maintain a lower foundation wall. He added the request is for a garage and deck within the setback stepping back to the house at 25 feet from the front property line. He then stated the design is intended to take advantage of the view as neighbouring properties are closer to the street. He added that soil engineering will be done in the area to address a water problem. Mr. & Mrs. Peterson, owners of 2534 Bayview Street, were present and stated they own a 45 year old cottage built on their lot before Bayview Street was built. They added they intend to remove the existing cottage and rebuild in a few years. Mr. & Mrs. Peterson then stated their objection to the appeal on the basis that when they rebuild on their property, the proposed construction would result in a lessening of the sunshine to their lot due to the configuration of the subject property. They added that if the subject property is built as planned, they would have to duplicate siting, or build in compliance with the by-law, leaving their house in shade. They expressed further concern with the massive structure of the subject house and that improper engineering may leave weak spots in the area. They expressed further concern with height of four levels of height. Mrs. S. Jensen of 2518 Bayview Street was present and expressed concern over the height of the subject house, with its blocking of views, with breaking the restrictive covenant, and with the precedent of siting houses within the setback. She then submitted letters from herself and H.J. Ballard of 2550 Bayview Street expressing opposition and concern with soil stability. The Chairman then stated that the height problem of the subject dwelling is not being addressed by the Board of Variance, noting that the appellant can construct whatever is allowed under the By-law. Mr. Ferguson then stated that the appellant is aware of the by-laws and of height restrictions. He added that there is no assurance that adjoining houses will change and that the appellant wishes to take advantage of the view. Appeal No Lynn - Appeal No Lynn - for permission to relax the front yard setback requirements from 7.5m to 6.91m to allow construction of an addition to the dwelling at 2633 Cedar Drive. Mr. Lynn was present and advised the Board he wishes an extension to an existing non-conformity, adding that the finished house will closely resemble what is seen in the neighbourhood. He then stated that neighbours have expressed no objection to the appeal. Appeal No Barkhausen - Appeal No Barkhausen - for permission to relax the height requirement of two-storeys to permit construction of a third-storey to a dwelling at A Avenue. Mr. Barkhausen was present, submitted a letter of authorization, and advised the Board that the existing house is a basement home. He stated that part of the basement and one storey are seen from the rear. Mr. Barkhausen then added he has avoided building across the top of the structure to avoid blocking the view of his neighbours, adding that the addition includes a bedroom, family room and rec room. Mr. Barkhausen then indicated he is prepared to place a flat roof on the addition in order to reduce the height. He then showed photographs of other houses in the neighbourhood which appear to have three levels of windows. Mr. & Mrs. Kiesewetter of Avenue were present to indicate opposition to the appeal and expressed concern with the size of the structure and with the potential for changing the character of the area.

9 Mr. & Mrs. Redekopp of Avenue were present to oppose the appeal and expressed concern with the height of the structure. Mr. & Mrs. M. Zack of A Avenue were present to oppose the appeal and expressed concern with spoiling of his view. Mr. & Mrs. W. Bateman of Avenue were present to indicate opposition to the appeal and expressed concern over the number of levels in the proposed structure and with the potential for other large houses in the area. Mrs. Hill of A Avenue was present to oppose the appeal and expressed concern over loss of view and the size of the proposed structure. Mr. E. Oliver of A Avenue was present to object to the appeal and submitted a letter of authorization from Mr. & Mrs. Gill of A Avenue also expressing opposition to the appeal. Mr. Stewart, contractor for the appellant, advised the Board that the discussion concerning two storeys versus three storeys is a technical argument and that the Permits and License Department has not ruled on the matter. He added that the appellant is willing to construct a flat roof the lower the elevation. The Chairman then noted that the Board of Variance has no jurisdiction with respect to that suggestion. Mr. Stewart then stated the appellant wishes to upgrade the house and increase property values. He then added that the By-law permits two storeys or 33 feet. Appeal No Solotki - Appeal No Solotki - for permission to relax the side yard setback requirements from 1.8m to 0.3m to allow retention of a carport at Street. Mr. Solotki was present and advised the Board that his carport has been in place since 1964 and encroaching on the neighbouring property line. The survey for the subdivision revealed the encroachment. Mr. Solotki then indicated he intends to remove a portion of the carport, leaving one carport bay. Appeal No MacLean - Appeal No MacLean - for permission to relax the rear yard setback requirements from 7.5m to 5.79m to allow construction of the rear sundeck at A Street. Mr. MacLean was present and advised the Board that he has a six foot sundeck legally constructed but desires a 12 foot sundeck. He indicated the house is a 3,100 square foot dwelling with basement and garage, having the appearance from the front of a rancher and from the rear of a two storey structure. He indicated his property slopes backwards and sideways. He then stated that he had tried numerous sets of plans to fit on this lot. The Board received a letter from W. Braaksma, owner of B Avenue, expressing opposition to the proposed appeal. Mr. MacLean then stated that the side of the Braaksma property has few windows overlooking his property, adding that his own property is higher than the Braaksma property.

10 Appeal No Laitinen - Appeal No Laitinen - for permission to relax the front yard setback requirements from 7.5m to 7.29m to allow construction of a full size garage at A Street. Mr. Laitinen, owner and builder of the 2,106 square foot house, was present and stated that the house meets all of the requirements. He added that he does not desire to reverse the house plan and eliminate the encroachment as the view upon entering the cul-de-sac would then be of the garage rather than of the house. Appeal No Holthe - Appeal No Holthe - for permission to relax the side yard setback requirements from 7.5m to 7.3m on the north and from 3.6m to 1.8m on the south to allow construction of a single family dwelling at A Street. Ron Honey, son-in-law and builder for the appellant, was present to speak to the appeal. He added that although the subject property is zoned for a church, the property is in fact too small to house a church, adding that the appellants desire to relax the requirements to allow a residential structure. Mr. Honey stated that the appellants had not been aware of the zoning upon purchasing the lot and that they desired the subject lot as it is convenient to amenities. It was then noted that the neighbours have expressed no opposition to the appeal. M. Cooper left the meeting at 2:37 p.m. C. ADOPTION OF MINUTES: The minutes of the Board of Variance meeting held on February 21, 1989 were adopted. D. OTHER COMPETENT BUSINESS: 1. Parking E. NEXT MEETING: The Board of Variance discussed the difficulty in acquiring parking spaces on meeting days and requested that a memo be sent to the Manager asking for his consideration in the provision of parking spaces for Board members. The next meeting of the Board of Variance will be held on April 18, F. ADJOURNMENT: The Board of Variance meeting adjourned at 3:53 p.m. CLKMIN 4618