Tuesday, December 12, Committee Room City Hall Avenue Surrey, B.C. Tuesday, December 12, 1995 Time: 9:05 a.m.

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Tuesday, December 12, Committee Room City Hall Avenue Surrey, B.C. Tuesday, December 12, 1995 Time: 9:05 a.m."

Branden Marsh
5 years ago
Views:

1 Tuesday, Committee Room City Hall Avenue Surrey, B.C. Tuesday, Time: 9:05 a.m. Present: M. Cooper - Acting Chair, E. MacLean, B. Dack and A. Rowe. Also Present: C. van den Broek, Manager, Residential Section and D. Hoey, Planning Assistant, for a portion of the meeting; and J. Turner, Administrative Assistant. A. TABLED APPEALS No new appeals. B. NEW APPEALS Appeal No Pamma - Appeal No Pamma - for permission to relax the rear yard setback requirement from 7.5m to 6.11m; to relax the south side yard setback requirement from 1.8m to.74m; and to relax the north side yard setback requirement from 1.8m to 1.71m to allow the retention of a single-family dwelling located at Street. Mr. Pamma was present and advised the Board he proposes to subdivide the subject lot, build upon it and rent it out. He proposes to demolish the existing dwelling in the future, at which time reconstruction would meet setback requirements. However, for now he wishes to retain this dwelling. He advised he intends to remove the rear porch to reduce the setback relaxation required from the rear property line. Discussion ensued concerning the addition of lands to the rear of the subject lot and the involvement of Mr. Pamma's neighbours in this proposed subdivision. Mr. Hoey confirmed the variance will be created by the subdivision and that a bond was posted by Mr. Pamma to ensure removal of the offending structure if approval from the Board is not gained. Mr. Pamma expressed concern that removal of a portion of the house to meet the new setback would be very expensive. Reference was made by a Board member to a previous appeal in Mr. Pamma advised that subdivision did not occur at that time due to a change of interest on the part of the neighbour. However, Mr. Pamma had provided the services which could not be used due to the neighbour's change of mind. Mr. van den Broek advised that if the Board of Variance granted the appeal, the south building face would require upgrading to meet Building Code standards. This may include the exclusion of openings which could become a problem if a bedroom was located in this location. the decision of the Board of Variance that this appeal be not allowed.

2 Appeal No Hull & MacDonald - Appeal No Hull & MacDonald - for permission to relax the front yard setback requirement from 7.5m to 4.5m to allow construction of a family room, games room and two bedrooms onto the dwelling located at A Avenue. Mr. Hull and Ms. MacDonald were present and advised the Board of new information which was very personal and therefore not included in their previous presentation to the Board. They explained that time is of the essence as the second bedroom is intended to be built for the use of Ms. MacDonald's mother who is battling cancer and will make extended visits to the household. They hope to complete the construction project by the end of this year. The appellants advised they had not been aware this information should be made available to the Board. The appellants advised the Board they have attempted to sell their house to enable the purchase of a larger home, however, market conditions prevented a sale. The appellants advised the Board an architect had drawn plans in keeping with the appearance of the neighbourhood and in consultation with neighbours. They pointed out the property is oddly shaped and that their Real Estate Agent had advised them the addition, as proposed, would increase the value of the property. The appellants submitted a letter signed by five of the neighbours who are not opposed to the appeal. They advised the Board they have been residents in the community for nine years and would like to stay if the addition were approved. They concluded by requesting the Board's favourable reconsideration of their approval and expressed concern over the financial burden of additional architectural drawings should the plans have to be changed. That the following letters expressing no opposition to the appeal be received: Mr. & Mrs. R. Vandyk A Street Linda & Clayton Meers Avenue Kurt & Bev Jensen Avenue Janine Hay A Street David Sandve A Street Discussion ensued concerning the rationale for not building the construction to the west where over 40 feet of property is available. The appellants explained the 26 foot structure would cut off this whole north portion of the property and be lost to recreational uses by the family. As well, there are bathroom and bedroom windows in this location which would be lost if construction were to occur. Furthermore, this location would bring construction closer to their neighbour. The appellants explained their legal side is the operating front of the house. In response to a question concerning whether they consulted with the Building Division, the appellants advised that an architect drew the plans to conform with the siting of neighbouring houses and had not realized he was dealing with the legal front of the subject property. the decision of the Board of Variance that this appeal be not allowed. Appeal No Botkin - Appeal No Botkin - for permission to relax the flanking yard setback requirement from 7.5m to

3 6.58m; and to relax the height requirement from 4m to 6.5m to allow the retention of a garage with an artist's studio above on the property located at Crescent Road. Mr. & Mrs. Botkin and their builder, Scott Ross, were present. The appellants advised they have saved for many years and invested all of their finances into the project. Their need for an art studio above the garage has become pressing to enable Mrs. Botkin to generate income from her art. Neither Mr. nor Mrs. Botkin have formal jobs at present. Mrs. Botkin resigned from her nursing position to pursue her career in art and Mr. Botkin's job was lost when Woodwards went out of business. His health now prevents him from continuing in his career as a pilot. The appellants explained the garage will assist them in providing a quality of life to both sets of parents who are elderly and ill and one of whom is confined to a wheelchair. A steep driveway leads down to the garage floor which is level with the lot. The parents can therefore negotiate from the garage into the dwelling. The appellants provide much personal assistance to their parents. To assist them in paying the costs of the construction, the appellants have constructed the garage/studio on an existing foundation. As well, they have provided their builder with the use of their home during the time of construction, as payment for services. They are currently residing in Mrs. Botkin's parents' home. An additional hardship is represented in that the lumber has cost double what it was estimated to cost. The Botkins explained the garage/studio will be finished to resemble the log style house. The staircase to the south of the studio will be enclosed in an attractive manner and treated with trellis work. They expressed a willingness to consider the wishes of the neighbour in this regard. The floor is engineered and the roof will be installed with pre-manufactured trusses. Mrs. Botkin reviewed her credentials as a serious artist, noting she has been pursuing a Fine Arts Degree for some years and works as an artist 8 hours a day. She demonstrated pieces of her artwork. Mrs. Botkin explained the studio is designed to provide those features which are critical to an artist. These include plentiful north light for painting, south light for drawing and composition, a large drawing space, stretching, drying and storage space, framing and matting space, and a clean-up area. To date, the progress of her work has been impeded by having to work in a closet size space in the house. Mr. Botkin advised the Board of negotiations which are underway to yield a portion of the Botkin property to the City which has been used as a City sidewalk for many years. The appellants advised their lot is located at the bottom of the steep grade. Their neighbour to the south has advised the building in question does not block their view. The Botkin yard is a park-like setting with fountains and tall trees, many of which make it difficult to achieve the light necessary to Mrs. Botkin's career, hence the second storey studio. The appellants displayed a cross-section of the property showing the neighbour's hedge and 10 foot fence which is 10 feet 5 inches from the garage/studio. They noted this fence rises to 14 feet. Because of the grade of their lot, their building just protrudes above the hedge. The appellants advised the Board that their south side neighbour will backfill before constructing on their lot. Once this backfill is in place, the relative height of their garage/studio will be 13 feet 6 inches at that corner. As well, they noted the studio would not be as noticeable on their lot as would a new house. The studio will blend into the property and match the dwelling. They also noted that if they came off 136 Street level with the poured foundation, the roof of a single storey garage would be the same height from their neighbour's perspective as the garage/studio is. Mr. Wallace, a member of the Heritage Advisory Committee, was present and advised the Board he has viewed the property. He noted it is a unique piece of property which will be difficult to build on to please everyone. He advised that ramping will be provided, as declared, for the disabled. He also commented that the structure is attractive. From a historical point of view, Mr. Wallace stated the Heritage Advisory Committee is

4 not opposed to the construction. In response to a question concerning the Crescent Road By-law and preservation of trees, the appellants advised that no trees have been removed to permit the construction of the garage/studio. Further, they commented their desire is to retain the trees on their lot as an amenity for themselves and the neighbourhood. Mr. van den Broek confirmed with the appellants that the accessory building, at 864 sq.ft. is not larger than the single family dwelling. As well, the appellants advise they will connect to the sewer which is coming up 136 Street by the new year. They have applied for septic approval as requested by Engineering and anticipate success. The appellants confirmed the accessory building is equipped with a bathroom. In response to Mr. van den Broek's observation that the accessory building could be converted into a second dwelling by future owners, the appellants affirmed their willingness to enter into a Restrictive Covenant to forbid this. In connection with the flanking yard setback, Mr. Botkin advised a mistake had been made in measuring to 6.1 metres which they believed was 25 feet and therefore presumed the setback was sufficient. Moved by B. Dack Seconded by E. MacLean That the following letters be received: Tracy Bromhead-Devlin Crescent Road No Objection T. Stefaniuk Crescent Road No Objection That the following letters be received: P. Gerkrath Crescent Road Opposed A. Olund & E. Hirtz Street Opposed During the in-camera session, the Board of Variance requested that the Administrative Assistant consult with the Board's Solicitor. Seconded by E. MacLean That the Administrative Assistant consult with the Board's Solicitor concerning Appeal the decision of the Board of Variance that this appeal be allowed. Appeal No Adams - Appeal No Adams - for permission to relax the north side yard setback requirements from 4.5m to 2.59m to allow the construction of a single family residence at 2599 Crescent Drive. M. Cooper stepped down from the Chair and left the meeting due to a conflict of interest. Mr. Rowe assumed the Chair.

5 Mr. & Mrs. Adams were present and offered their apologies to the members of the Board of Variance for delivering a request for reconsideration of an earlier appeal, which had been denied, directly to their homes. The appellants advised that due to their age they have planned a single level, wheelchair friendly home to accommodate them for future needs. This requires wide halls, doorways and installation of ramps, etc. They confirmed the dwelling is a single family home and advised that stairs shown on plan lead only to a furnace area. Mr. & Mrs. Adams advised they selected the site specifically because of its sensitivity and respect for the environment. They have selected an architect who will design a house which will nestle into the property and maintain various features including trees flanking Crescent Road and a grand fir tree. Their plan will also integrate the garden into the house and maximize their view. A modest roof pitch will keep the entire structure low. As well, the appellants' selection of site reflects their historical roots in the community. The wedge shaped lot, with the narrow portion facing the view, has presented other difficulties in developing a suitable design. The appellants advised that when they purchased the property in 1951, the bluff edge was more level. Twenty years ago a slide occurred which changed the shape of the bluff and took away 30% of the buildable area of the property. The grand fir tree referred to above assists in maintaining the stability of the remaining bluff edge. The grand fir tree is a tradition of the family and a long-standing focus point. The house has been designed to avoid the drip line which buts the edge of the deck. The setback request enables this siting. The setback will also permit the retention of garden space and room for family activities. The privacy of their northerly neighbour will be protected as the neighbours have no windows facing this area and use their side space for a service path only. The appellants advised they have their neighbours' support for the proposal. The appellants also confirmed that transparent glass will form the connecting breezeway. That the following letters be received: Mr. & Mrs. Adams 2599 Crescent Drive Appellants D. & L. Schouten 2594 Crescent Drive Support Paul Gilley 2579 Crescent Drive Support A. & V. Van Veen 2615 Crescent Drive No Objections J. & J. Bray 1574 Crescent Drive Support the decision of the Board of Variance that this appeal be allowed. M. Cooper returned to the meeting and resumed the Chair. Appeal No Matheson - Appeal No Matheson - for permission to relax the south setback requirements between mobile homes and/or additions from 3m to 1.42m to allow the retention of a patio roof on the mobile home at Cranley Drive. Mrs. Matheson was present and advised the Board the patio roof existed when she purchased the property. She

6 had not realized there was a by-law infraction until January 1995 when the Building Division approached her. She was then advised the previous owner had applied for a permit in April of 1992 to install the patio, but proceeded without permit approval. Strata Council permission has been granted. Mrs. Matheson advised the Board that the neighbouring modular home has no windows overlooking her patio. Mr. Hoey confirmed that the subject lot is outside the area of a Development Permit. As well, Mr. Hoey was unable to confirm that the Development Permit received final approval. The Administrative Assistant advised the Board of the existence of a Covenant on the property. That the following letters, expressing no objections to the appeal, be received: John Brown #41, 2345 Cranley Drive S. Bonneville #42, 2345 Cranley Drive J. Simpson #68, 2345 Cranley Drive T. Pulak #27, 2345 Cranley Drive E. Curle #66, 2345 Cranley Drive B. Williams #44, 2345 Cranley Drive L. Jacques #31, 2345 Cranley Drive D. Merrells #50, 2345 Cranley Drive. the decision of the Board of Variance that this appeal be allowed. C. ADOPTION OF MINUTES That the minutes of the November 2, 1995 Board of Variance meeting be adopted as circulated. D. OTHER COMPETENT BUSINESS 1. R91 Arterial Roads Map The Administrative Assistant agreed to continue following up on the next update of the R91 Arterial Roads Map. 2. Heritage Legislation Workshops The Board discussed a letter received from the City Clerk concerning Heritage Legislation Workshops which are proposed in the new year. That the December 11, 1995 letter from the City Clerk concerning the Seminars be received.

7 Seconded by A. Rowe That Council be requested to authorize funds to the following for attendance at the workshops to be held on the new Heritage Legislation: M. Cooper Friday, February 9, 1996 $95.00 A. Rowe Saturday, March 30, 1996 $15.00 Seconded by A. Rowe That Council be requested to authorize the Board of Variance's Administrative Assistant to attend the Workshop on Friday, February 9, 1995, at a cost of $ Appointment to the Board of Variance E. NEXT MEETING The Board was advised that Mr. Kashmir Kang has been appointed by Surrey Council as the fifth member of the Surrey Board of Variance. The next meeting of the Board of Variance will be held on Tuesday, January 16, 1996, at 9:00 a.m. F. ADJOURNMENT The Board of Variance meeting adjourned at 1:30 p.m. CLKMIN 4782

Edmonton Subdivision and Development Appeal Board

Edmonton Subdivision and Development Appeal Board Churchill Building 10019-103 Avenue NW Edmonton, AB T5J 0G9 Phone: 780-496-6079 Fax: 780-577-3537 Email: sdab@edmonton.ca Web: www.edmontonsdab.ca 10425-92