Board of Variance Minutes

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Board of Variance Minutes"

Clarence Powell
5 years ago
Views:

1 Board of Variance Minutes Council Chamber City Hall Avenue Surrey, B.C. TUESDAY, JULY 28, 2009 Time: 9:00 a.m. File: Present: Chairperson M. Cooper D. Kenny K. Nice A. Pease S. Round Absent: Staff Present: J. McKenzie Manager, Residential Section Planning & Development L. Pitcairn Planner, North Surrey Division Planning & Development L. Cesario Secretary A. DEFERRED APPEALS 1. Appeal No Letroy For permission to relax the rear yard setback requirement from 7.5 m to.53 m to allow the construction of balconies on the 2nd and 3rd floor of the existing dwelling at A Street. Mr. Rick Letroy was in attendance to discuss the appeal. The lot under consideration is located in the Duplex Residential (RM D) Zone. The buildings are stratified. The applicant is proposing to extend cantilevered decks along the south face of the building. This south property line is the rear lot line. We have no record of the existing enclosed deck, however it appears that the deck structure was most likely constructed at the time of the initial construction of the dwelling. The Planner provided historical zoning information on the evolution of the lot to strata. His application includes building two balconies as well as some overhangs to the roof areas and windows for protection from constant rain. Alternatively, if the balconies are not approved, he would like the overhangs approved to provide this protection. There may be a change to the balconies dependent on structural needs. The adjacent property in the rear yard is leased through the railway. Moved by S. Round Seconded by D. Kenny 1. receipt from BNSF Railway dated July 20, 2009, be received. h:\bov\minutes\2009\min bov docx Page 1 R 10/05/09 13:19 PM

2 B. NEW APPEALS In response to questions from the Board, the Appellant added the following comments: Strata approval will be required should the Board approve the appeal. His hardship is based on the reorganization of the Strata Plan and the inability to have any deck at the rear elevation. To open up the deck area to the ocean area would be something to enjoy. Due to weather conditions, the decks require overhead protection. The entire south face must be redone due to water penetration. They have had water leakage through the windows. There does not appear to be a way of stopping the leakage as the building was a poor design. Apparently the other units are not having the same issue. The neighbor to the west has balconies of a different design. Under the Strata Plan, he will have to satisfy his neighbors before the construction is allowed and any design criteria will be addressed. He will require an architectural plan that suits every one. Moved by K. Nice Seconded by A. Pease That Appeal No be allowed based on the Strata providing approval of the extension and final Strata approval will be required for the construction. the decision of the Board of Variance that Appeal be allowed. 2. Appeal No Heppell and Schouten For permission to relax the front yard setback requirement along with the specail setback baseline as defined by Part 7 of the Surrey Zoning By law from 30 m to 13 m; and and relax the north side yard setback requirement from 15m to 9.144m to allow the construction of a farm storage facility at Street Mr. Peter Schouten, Agent for the Appellants was in attendance to discuss the appeal. Moved by K. Nice Seconded by A. Pease 1. Letter of authorization dated June 5, 2009; and 2. Letter from Doug Jarvie, Agent for Heppell s Potato Corp. dated July 5, 2009, be received. h:\bov\minutes\2009\min bov docx Page 2

3 The lot is located in the General Agriculture (A 1) Zone. 184 Street is also a major arterial road at that location. Part 7 of the Zoning By law indicates that the ultimate road width will be 24 meters, therefore requiring 12 meters from the road centerline to the setback base line. In effect, this requires an additional 1.95 meters of setback from the front property line, for a total of meters from the front lot line. The wording in the appeal references the setback as being 30 meters from the setback baseline, so this is consistent. It is understood that the setback variance being requested is to 13 meters from the property line. The Agent for the Appellants advised: Their hardship is that they have seen a four time increase in the cost of their land. If they had to build the facility in another location or on another piece of their existing farmland, it would occupy very valuable growing space. They have heavily invested in a water recycling and treatment system that enables them to filter and purify the water, wash and flume the potatoes out of the current storage. They must meet all safety food requirements. If they can build the facility close enough, they can tie in to the existing system. The cost to build in any other area goes up substantially due to site prep, and fill and preload would be required to bring the site up to grade. The good soils are hard to build on and the proposed site is easier to build on. They are required to maintain a fully audited site. Having to relocate part of the storage would require a new audit program that would be very expensive to manage and operate. The utilities are all centrally located in this area, and would be difficult to move. He has spoken to the majority of neighbors about the proposed facility. In response to questions from the Board, the Agent for the Appellants provided a synopsis of the water recycling and treatment system. In response to questions from the Board, the Manager Residential Section advised: There are no concerns with the facility being on an arterial road. Seconded by S. Round That Appeal No be allowed on the basis of hardship with respect to the overall operation of the potato farm. the decision of the Board of Variance that Appeal be allowed. h:\bov\minutes\2009\min bov docx Page 3

4 3. Appeal No Dessureault/ Isaacson For permission to relax the front yard setback requirement from 7.5 m to 3.59 m; and relax the north side yard setback requirement from 1.2 m to 0.76 m to bring the existing dwelling into conformity and allow the construction of an addition above the garage at Street. Mr. Peter Isaacson was in attendance to discuss the appeal. 1. Letter from the Appellants dated July 3, 2009, be received. This lot is located in the Single Family Residential Gross Density (RF G) Zone. The standard minimum required front yard setback is 7.5 meters. In this subdivision a Development Permit (DP) allowed a reduction. The north side yard setback was likewise reduced through the DP. Given that the appeal deals with areas previously addressed through a DP it is considered that the BOV may not be able to address this appeal. The Planner confirmed the following information: In the early 1980s, developments permits were used regulate the form and character of residential subdivisions as well as to relax setbacks and siting of structures. In 1983/84, changes to legislation dictated that development permits were no longer used to regulate residential property. In this particular permit, a development permit varied the setbacks of the RF C Zone under Zoning By law The relaxation included a front yard setback variance to 3.72m and a north and south setback variance to 1.56m. The City Solicitor has advised the variance request is within the Board s jurisdiction as it is similar to the development variance permit. The variance is necessary to normalize the existing home as the garage extends to 3.59m. They worked with their designer as they originally wanted a 16ft addition that would satisfy the 80/20 rule. On recalculation, they felt they would not be able to accomplish a 16 ft addition. They love the neighborhood. It is a family neighborhood and they are expecting an addition. They currently have 3 bedrooms, as well as an office for his home based business. The office is currently being used as a baby room. h:\bov\minutes\2009\min bov docx Page 4

5 The addition above the existing garage will be the master bedroom. It is the only area they could put another room. Their hardship is that they do not want to move but they need a home office and extra space for the growing family. Moved by S. Round Seconded by D. Kenny That Appeal No be allowed based on hardship related to the history surrounding the site, and further the proposed addition represents more efficient use of the site. the decision of the Board of Variance that Appeal be allowed. 4. Appeal No Huynh For permission to relax the maximum height requirement for a principal building from 9.0 m to 9.49 m to allow the construction of a single family dwelling at Street. Mr. and Mrs. Ngoc Van and Betty Huynh, the Appellants, and Mr. Dman, Agent for the Appellants were in attendance to discuss the appeal. 1. Letter of authorization; 2. Letter requesting to attend hearing from Darshan Mand of D. Mand Design dated July 24, 2009, and 2. Letter from the Appellant dated June 25, 2009, be received. This lot is located in the Single Family Residential (RF) Zone. The maximum building height for the RF Zone is 9 meters. The lot is situated on the lowest possible land within the Flood Controlled Area. This area stipulates that they must have a minimum Geodetic Elevation of 4.4m. They cannot lower the house due to the flood level. If they keep the house at the flood level, then it is lower than the neighboring area. h:\bov\minutes\2009\min bov docx Page 5

6 In response to questions from the Board, the Planner advised: The lot is in the Bridgeview area where there is a minimum flood plain elevation of 4.4m. All of your habitable space must be above 4.4m. In response to questions from the Board, the Manager, Residential Section advised: The constraint on the design of the house involves limitations on what you can build at ground level. The proponents are suggesting that those constraints have resulted in the house requiring an increase in height. Livable area is not allowed below 4.4m which is some height above grade. You cannot build a basement in the Bridgeview area. Moved by S. Round That Appeal No be allowed on the basis of hardship caused by Flood Plain regulations. the decision of the Board of Variance that Appeal be allowed. 5. Appeal No Wuss For permission to relax the flanking side yard setback requirement from 7.5 m to 1.0 m to allow the construction of a detached garage at Avenue. Mr. Marty Wuss was in attendance to discuss the appeal. 1. Letter from the Appellants dated July 15, 2009, and 2. Letter from Paul Rowe of A Avenue dated July 27, 2009, be received. This lot is located in the Single Family Residential Gross Density (RF G) Zone. The minimum setback for an accessory building from a flanking side yard lot line is 7.5 meters. The Planner confirmed the following information: The property is impacted by a development permit that relaxes setbacks for a garage and permits that a house provide for a detached garage. Under the permit, the flanking Street has been relaxed from 7.5m to 4 feet. h:\bov\minutes\2009\min bov docx Page 6

7 In response to questions from the Board, the Planner advised: The City did not register notice of permits against title in the early 1980s. The Chair reiterated that there is a variance on the flanking side yard for a garage to 4 feet and further, the appeal requested a variance from 7.5m to 1.0m. The Chair further noted that notification provided should reflect a flanking side yard variance from 4 feet to 1m. The Manager, Residential Section noted that in light of the existing variance on the property, the Appellant may wish to withdraw his application to the Board and build within the allowable setbacks. They were informed by the Building Division that the setback was 7.5m. He has room to build the proposed garage within the allowable setback and would be happy to do that. The house is 20 years old and there is a swale running through the neighborhood. There is a drop in elevation on the property, a transition of approximately 12 feet. If he is allowed to build on it, his question is whether he can excavate an additional few feet. He had provided for a reduction in the elevation to reduce the impact of the proposed building. In response to questions from the Appellant, the Manager, Residential Section advised: The plan checker review of the application to date appears satisfactory save for the setbacks. The current zone allows that accessory buildings and structures constructed with the roof slope and construction material as the principal building may be increased in height to 5 metres (16.5 ft.). Appeal was withdrawn by the Appellant. 6. Appeal No King For permission to relax the south side yard setback requirement from 7.51 m to 3.2 m; and relax the front yard setback requirement from 15.5 (12m plus 3.5m for future road widening) to to allow the construction of a single family dwelling at Street. Mr. Theodore King was in attendance to discuss the appeal. h:\bov\minutes\2009\min bov docx Page 7

8 Moved by K. Nice Seconded by A. Pease 1. Letter of Authorization dated June 18, 2009; 2. Letter from the Appellants dated July 4, 2009; and 3. Letters of support from B. Nguyen, M. Rousseau and L. Krau of Street, B. Dickson and T. Varga of Street, W. Foster of Street, be received. The lot is located in the General Agriculture (A 1) Zone. The minimum required side yard for a single family dwelling is the lesser of 13.5 meters or 10% of the lot width. In this case, 10% of the lot width is 7.51 meters. 184 Street is also a major arterial road at that location. At this location the special setback baseline is located at 13.5 meters from the centerline of 184 Street. The minimum required setback from the current front lot line is therefore 15.5 meters. Their house burned down on January 20 of 2008 and they have been trying to have it rebuilt ever since. The insurance company is involved and this has caused some delay. The building permit was applied for and they were informed variances were required. He had originally built the house himself and the side yard variance was applied for and approved. He has been informed that a new variance is required to rebuild. He was further informed that he needed a variance with the frontage. Since the house was originally built, 184 Street has become an arterial road and therefore there is additional road required for future widening. At the time of originally building the house, there was a permitted 40 feet from the property line at the road. The foundation would have gone through an existing well site which was a big asset. As a result, he built the house an additional 12 feet back from the road resulting in 52 feet from the road. He does not understand why he needs a variance in the front yard area. The Secretary stated that staff could not locate the Board of Variance minutes of January 4, 1967 regarding prior Appeal 1344 that approved a 10 foot side yard variance on the proposed site. The Planner confirmed the proposed setback of 15.24m is equivalent to 50 feet and 3.2m is equivalent to 10.5 feet. In response to questions from the Board, the Appellant advised: The foundation has received Engineering approval. h:\bov\minutes\2009\min bov docx Page 8

9 The Chair concluded that the original variances stand but due to the lack of recorded information it would be prudent to cover all variances at this time. hardship caused by fire. Moved by S. Round Seconded by D. Kenny That Appeal No be allowed based on the decision of the Board of Variance that Appeal be allowed. There was an adjournment at 10:40 a.m. The meeting reconvened at 11:08 a.m. with the same members in attendance. C. ADOPTION OF MINUTES That the minutes of the Board of Variance meeting of June 23, 2009 be approved as circulated. D. OTHER COMPETENT BUSINESS 1. The notification letters were approved by the Board and initialed by the Chair. 2. Board of Variance Seminar: Seconded by M. Cooper That an invitation to the September 16, 2009 seminar be forwarded to the City resource staff to the Board. 3. The Chair provided a general explanation of s. 911 (8) of the Local Government Act related to fire damage. E. NEXT MEETING The next meeting of the Board of Variance will be held on Tuesday, September 22, 2009 at 9:00 a.m. F. ADJOURNMENT The Board of Variance meeting adjourned at 11:20 a.m. Jane Sullivan, City Clerk Marie Cooper Chairperson h:\bov\minutes\2009\min bov docx Page 9

Board of Variance Minutes

Board of Variance Minutes Council Chamber City Hall 14245-56 Avenue Surrey, B.C. WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 14, 2011 Time: 9:00 a.m. File: 0360-20 Present: Chairperson - M. Cooper K. Nice A. Pease D. Kenny S.