Tuesday, September 19, Committee Room Municipal Hall Avenue Surrey, B.C. Tuesday, September 19, 1989 Time: 9:00 a.m.

Transcription

1 Tuesday, September 19, 1989 Committee Room Municipal Hall Avenue Surrey, B.C. Tuesday, September 19, 1989 Time: 9:00 a.m. Present: J. Weber - Acting Chairman, R. Beddis, R. Reimer and E. MacLean. Also Present: C. van den Broek - Permits & Licenses Department, P. Hoey - Planning Department for a portion of the meeting, and J. Turner - Administrative Assistant. A. NEW APPEALS: Appeal No Burnaby Lake Greenhouses Ltd. - Appeal No Burnaby Lake Greenhouses Ltd. - for permission to relax the side yard setback requirement from 13.5m to 7.5m to allow construction of a shipping shed at Avenue. Mr. Herb Vanderende, owner, Bert Miles and Mrs. Maplethorpe were present and advised the Board their operation fronts 80 Avenue, although this is the legal side yard of their property. It was noted this frontage is approximately 3,000 feet. The appellants advised the board they intend expansion to an existing building, where loading presently occurs, to allow management of the increased volume of business. The loading following this expansion will be handled entirely on the east side of the building. The appellants added that although a 45-foot setback is required on the side yard, they require a 25-foot setback in order to make the project practical. Siting of the present and future expansion was discussed, noting that much of the land is peaty with a grade on the property. The currently proposed expansion is planned for a portion of the property which has solid footing. The entire site was described as 75 acres with approximately 15 acres presently in use. The future expansion was described and the appellants advised the Board they have filled and partially leveled in preparation for this work. The appellants confirmed that the current shipping expansion will meet the future needs. The appellants further advised they are aware of the need for a wide insulation buffer between their property and any residential property, noting when they purchased their property they planned for a large amount of greenspace to reduce the impact. Appeal No Read - Appeal No Read - for permission to relax the rear yard setback requirement from 7.5m to 2.79m to allow construction of a sunroom on existing dwelling at Avenue. Mrs. Read was present and advised the Board she wishes to construct a 224 square foot sunroom on the rear of the existing building to provide space for grandchildren. She noted the present size of the house is 15 by 50 square feet. Mrs. Read then advised the Board the construction was begun without a permit, as she was unaware this was required. She was subsequently advised by an inspector of the encroachment. She then

2 advised the board that the sunroom, which is already erected does not meet the structural requirement of a solid foundation, rather than a foundation on blocks. Appeal No Johnson - Appeal No Johnson - for permission to relax the rear yard setback requirements from 7.5m to 6.7m to allow construction of a sundeck and stairs on the dwelling at Avenue. The appellant was present and advised the Board that the panhandle lot presents a difficult building envelope, noting that only a portion at the end of the deck and some of the stairs actually encroach. The deck is approximately 10 feet deep. The dwelling was described as architecturally designed and a green belt was identified along a portion of the rear yard of the subject property. Appeal No Copeman - Appeal No Copeman - for permission to relax the side yard setback requirements from 1.8m to 1.22m to allow retention of a family room extension on the dwelling at Street. Gerald Copeman was present and advised the Board his house had an existing two-foot cantilevered sundeck and he has constructed a family room extension above this pre-existing condition. He noted a Stop Work Order has been issued. He further advised the Board there is a window off the family room designed to provide a view of the North Shore mountains. Mr. Burl Smith of Avenue was present and expressed no opposition to the overhang. He did, however, express concern with respect to the 8'6" window on the north side of the subject property, overlooking the entertainment area of his own rear yard. He expressed the desire to have the window removed to enable preservation of his privacy. A Board member advised Mr. Smith that the matter of the window is not within the jurisdiction of the Board of Variance, which can deal only with the encroachment as presented in the appeal. Appeal No Holliday - Appeal No Holliday - for permission to relax the rear yard setback requirements from 7.5m to 7.21m to allow retention of a rear deck overhand on the dwelling at Avenue. Mr. J. Holliday was present and advised the Board he constructed a sundeck onto the house which is intended for his own use. He further advised that in measuring, he took the dimensions from the posts as he believed that since the house eaves were allowed, the same conditions would apply to the sundeck. Appeal No Tigert - Appeal No Tigert - for permission to relax the front yard set back requirements from 7.5m to 6.1m to allow construction of a carport and bedroom on the dwelling at A Avenue.

3 Mr. Earl Tigert was present and advised the Board he plans a new house, noting the drawings have not yet been submitted to the Permits & License Department for approval. He noted the house will be 1,950 square feet on one level with a basement, that the lot is approximately 102 feet long, and that site coverage meets the by-law. He further noted he is not aware if other siting problems exist with respect to the plans, adding he does not wish to purchase final plans until he is aware of the Board of Variance decision. He further noted he is not opposed to changing the plans, if the setback is not approved. Mr. Tigert then pointed out the neighbouring house fronts a different street; therefore, that house and his own house will have a similar setback with respect to 100A Avenue. Appeal No Bjarnson - Appeal No Bjarnson - for permission to relax the rear yard setback requirements from 7.5m to 6.1m to allow construction of an addition to existing house at A Avenue. Mr. Bjarnson was present and advised the board that the submitted plans for the appeal show only the foundation and do not include the overhang, noting that he would require a greater relaxation than what is applied for. Mr. Bjarnson was then advised by the Board that a greater relaxation than what was noted on the appeal cannot be dealt with at the present time, noting that he would be required to build in accordance with the figures stated or submit an altered appeal. Mr. Bjarnson then indicated he wished the appeal to stand. In further discussion, Mr. Bjarnson advised the board that he wishes to cover an existing patio on a two and half year old, 1640 square foot rancher, noting the lot is approximately 70 by 104 feet. The proposed addition would amount to 260 square feet. Mr. Bjarnson then advised the Board he desired the enclosure of this patio as he experiences an excessive amount of moss coverage during the winter. Appeal No Juneau Dev. Inc. - Appeal No Juneau Dev. Inc. - for permission to relax the side yard setback requirements from 1.8m to 1.27m to allow retention of a dining room hutch on the dwelling at Street. This appeal was dealt with later in the agenda. Appeal No Juneau Dev. Inc. - Appeal No Juneau Dev. Inc. - for permission to relax the side yard setback requirements from 1.8m to 1.52m to allow retention of three boxed windows on the dwelling at Street. This appeal was dealt with later in the agenda. Appeal No Skoreyko - Appeal No Skoreyko - for permission to relax the height requirements for accessory buildings from 3.6m to 4.13m to allow construction of a garage at Clayton Hill Drive. Mr. Shoreyko was present and advised the board he wishes to construct a garage to house his motor home, noting he requires a 12-foot wall to allow overhead doors. He noted he has spoken to a neighbour across the

4 street who has expressed no objection and pointed out other neighbours will not be affected by the proposed construction. In response to a question concerning the possibility of excavation to reduce the floor level, Mr. Skoreyko indicated he could consider excavation, but expressed concern with the possible collection of rainwater in that area. He then indicated the garage will be sited on the south side of his property, with entrance off the back lane on the west side. It was then noted the dwelling is sited east/west on the property. In discussing the turning radius for the motor home, Mr. Skoreyko indicated he intends to build a 30-foot, blacktop driveway. He then added he feels a flat roof would not be an attractive method of finishing the garage. It was further noted that the subject property is at the entrance to the Clayton Hill development. Appeal No Juneau Dev. Inc. - Appeal No Juneau Dev. Inc. - for permission to relax the side yard setback requirements from 1.8m to 1.27m to allow retention of a dining room hutch on the dwelling at Street. Mr. Eric Jaeger and his surveyor, Mr. Aldritch, were present and advised the Board an oversight on the part of the surveyor in failing to refer to the floor plans resulted in an incorrect siting. They added an existing chimney will protrude further than the proposed hutch, which is 6.8 feet by 18 inches long, and intended to enhance a dining room which is felt to be too small. Mr. Jaeger then indicated that the addition of the hutch to the house would make selling of the house easier. Appeal No Juneau Dev. Inc. - Appeal No Juneau Dev. Inc. - for permission to relax the side yard setback requirements from 1.8m to 1.52m to allow retention of three boxed windows on the dwelling at Street. Mr. Eric Jaeger and his surveyor, Mr. Aldritch, were present and advised the Board they wish relaxation on their rancher to permit boxed windows, which would provide a more attractive view for the neighbour in a subdivision where the houses are close together. Mr. Jaeger indicated he is building similar houses elsewhere and providing narrower hutches in his attempt to avoid a reoccurrence of the error. In response to a question, Mr. Jaeger clarified that there are in fact four box windows and not three, as indicated on the plans. Appeal No Elmridge Construction Ltd. - Appeal No Elmridge Construction Ltd. - for permission to relax the side yard setback requirements from 1.8m to 1.72m to allow construction of a hutch on the dwelling at A Avenue. Mr. Hank Vanderhorst was present and advised the Board the encroachment for the hutch was discovered at final inspection. He further commented that the angle of the lot creates a problem with the hutch. Appeal No Rouse -

5 Appeal No Rouse - for permission to relax the rear yard setback requirements from 7.5m to 6.1m to allow construction of a family room on the dwelling at A Street. Bev Rouse and Pat Parkinson were present and advised the Board they wish a 192 square foot addition on a two-year-old, 1250 square foot house which has been owned by Mrs. Rouse for two years. The house was described with respect to the floor plan, noting it is only a two-bedroom dwelling. Mrs. Rouse then advised the addition will be finished to resemble the existing house and referred to the lot which is short and curved to allow a cul-de-sac, thus creating a problem with the encroachment. The Board received a letter from Charles Hall of A Avenue, expressing no objection to the appeal. Appeal No Fraser - Appeal No Fraser - for permission to relax the rear yard setback requirements from 7.5m to 6.55m to allow construction of a hot tub deck on the dwelling at Avenue. Mr. Fraser was present and advised the Board the subject property is his own home and he began construction on the hot tub deck not realizing he was required to meet by-law specifications. He added that he stopped construction when he discovered the encroachment. Mr. Fraser advised the Board that his neighbours have stated no objection to the appeal and the rear of the property is dedicated to parkland. He further advised he had considered a smaller hot tub, but noted this would result in a reduction of only one foot in the encroachment. He indicated access to the tub would be from the top deck and submitted elevations. The Board received letters from Randy & Laura Albert of Avenue and from Linda & Michael Place of Avenue, expressing no objection to the appeal. Appeal No Schmidt - Appeal No Schmidt - for permission to relax the side yard setback requirements from 1.0m to.76m and the rear yard setback requirements from 1.8m to.45m to allow retention of a cedar shed at A Avenue. Mr. Al Schmidt was present on behalf of Mrs. Lydia Schmidt and submitted a letter of authorization. Mr. Schmidt advised the Board that due to a higher grade on a neighbouring lot, he had been required to grade his lot to permit a swale and an inspection chamber in the back corner, which is now graveled. He discussed the siting of a garden and of a shed, noting the shed is on blocks three feet from the property line, but without allowing for the shed overhang. He indicated a building permit is not required for a smaller size shed. Mrs. Bradley of A Avenue was present and advised the Board that Mr. Schmidt had failed to resolve the water problem on his property, forcing her to dig a ditch along her property to accommodate the water. She stated that Mr. Schmidt had not approached neighbours to determine their feelings with respect to the appeal and indicated she objects to the infringement of the by-law. She added that the shed is an eyesore in the community. Mrs. Bradley then indicated that three of the neighbouring properties objected to the appeal and referred particularly to Mr. Murray of A Avenue. Mr. Schmidt then indicated he had spoken with some of his neighbours directly affected by the shed and they had expressed no objection to the appeal. He advised that he had clarified with Mr. Murray that he has no easement on his property; therefore, creating no access problem and further clarified with Mr. Murray that no

6 fire access is required across the rear of his property; whereupon he stated Mr. Murray indicated if the shed is legally sited, he would have no objection. The Board received letters from R. & E. Murray of A Avenue, from A. & R. Pallett and from S. & C. Bradley of A Avenue, expressing opposition to the appeal; as well as a letter from E. & M. Burroughs stating no objection. (NOTE: See further comments below.) Appeal No Dolphin Projects Ltd. - Appeal No Dolphin Projects Ltd. - for permission to relax the site coverage requirement from 25% to 26.8% to permit a dwelling at A Avenue. Mr. George Friesen and Lionel Newton, Realtor, were present and advised the Board they created a design to fit the lot, noting that the developer has approved those plans. Five weeks later, they were advised that the house was too large by about 200 square feet on a 2,969 square foot house with a triple garage on a half-acre lot. They then noted that the permit has been approved for the property and is awaiting the results of the appeal. The appellants then advised they have attempted to reduce the size of the house, but feel this would be aesthetically damaging. They added that they have built two other houses in the subdivision, noting that they were different size lots. They added there is parkland nearby and only one house is directly affected by the subject property. They then expressed a concern with the timely progress of this project and advised the Board the house is intended to be sold. Appeal No Koo - Appeal No Koo - for permission to relax the side yard setback requirements from 1.8m to 0.03m to allow retention of a sundeck on the existing dwelling at Avenue. Mrs. Koo and her Engineer, John Toth, were present and advised the Koo's were the owner of the original tract of land prior to subdivision. This land was sold to a developer and they wish to retain the house on a minimum lot width of 16.5 metres. The Board was then advised that the Koo's own both Lots 9 & 10 in the subdivision. In further discussion, it was noted that the deck is approximately 1.8 metres and would have to be entirely removed in order to meet the by-law requirements. Access to the deck is via a sliding door from the family nook. Mrs. Koo advised that the house is now seven years old and faces 102 Avenue, which is now being opened. Appeal No Juckes - Appeal No Juckes - for permission to relax the side yard setback requirements from 1.8m to 1.22m to allow construction of a carport/garage at Park Drive. Mr. Juckes was present and advised the Board of his long-term plan for the property, being an extension of the building at the rear of his property, with a short-term plan to extend the dwelling to the front to alleviate the appearance of a box-like structure. He indicated he desires a carport over the 13-foot driveway to a bearing

7 wall next to a solid cedar hedge between his own property and the neighbouring property. He advised he desires this width of carport to permit safe backing movements of his vehicle and boat in the building to the rear of the lot. He added the carport will have a garage door to the front, but will be open on two sides. He then noted that he is aware he can have and 11 1/2 foot carport legally sited, but again expressed concern with safe vehicle movements. Appeal No Dyck - Appeal No Dyck - for permission to relax the front yard setback requirements from 7.5m to 7.01m and the rear yard setback requirements from 7.5m to 6.1m to allow construction of a new home at Plumtree Close. Mr. Dyck was present and advised the Board he is building a home for his own use, adding he reduced a 23- foot garage to 21 feet, but requires relaxations. He added the house is two storeys with a full basement, with 1,254 square feet on the main floor with 440 square feet for the garage. He then added that the angle of the lot has created difficulties, but that a plan has been selected to reflect its shape. Mr. Dyck then noted that the lot to the rear of his property is lower than his own property and added that the side of his house will have the same setback as his neighbour's front yard setback. Appeal No Cheema - Appeal No Cheema - for permission to relax the rear yard setback requirements from 1.8m to.76m to allow retention of a garden shed at A Avenue. Mr. Cheema and his cousin were present and advised the Board they wish to retain the shed on a concrete slab to permit storage for tools. They noted that other neighbours have sheds on the fence line and that they were unaware of the need to allow a setback from the property line. Appeal No Difra Enterprises Ltd. - Appeal No Difra Enterprises Ltd. - for permission to relax the side yard setback requirements from 1.8m to 1.4m to allow retention of a hutch on the dwelling at Street. Frank Martino of Difra Enterprises Ltd. was present and advised the Board he is building the dwelling for his own use. He noted the house has a greater setback than is required, commenting, however, that this setback will not permit legal siting of the hutch. He then advised the neighbouring house is owned by his brother. It was the decision of the Board o Variance that this appeal be denied. Appeal No Huberts & Son Construction - Appeal No Huberts & Son Construction - for permission to relax the side yard setback requirements from 1.8m to 1.42m to allow construction of a dining room hutch on the dwelling at A Street. The appellant was present and advised the Board their purchaser desires a cantilevered hutch which would be

8 larger than hutches built on other homes in the area. It was noted that the dining room is not large and that the house dimensions are 2,000 square feet, not including a loft above the garage. It was noted the plans provide for a chimney to be sited in front of the hutch. Appeal No Murray - Appeal No Murray - for permission to relax the rear yard setback requirements from 7.5m to 5.77m to allow retention of a sundeck on the dwelling at B Avenue. Mr. Murray was present and advised the Board the sundeck area was originally planned to be exposed patio; however, concern with a fall from the house to the patio level resulted in changes to the plan to include a sundeck. Mr. Murray then advised that due to cost, he decided to build the sundeck himself, after being led to believe by the builder that the deck had been included in the permit. Mr. Murray then advised the subject lot is somewhat shorter than the neighbouring lots, that he cannot push the house further forward as this would create side yard encroachments, and that there exists a water well in his rear yard. Appeal No Ayers - Appeal No Ayers - for permission to relax the side yard setback requirements from 1.8m to 1.37m to allow construction of a bathroom addition on the dwelling at A Street. No one was present to speak to this appeal. It was the decision of the Board of Variance that this appeal be tabled to allow the appearance of the appellant. Appeal No Atkinson - Appeal No Atkinson - for permission to relax the front yard setback requirements from 7.5m to 6.1m to allow construction of a house at A Street. No one was present to speak to this appeal. After due consideration and a review of the plans, it was the decision of the Board of Variance that this appeal be denied. Appeal No Smith - Appeal No Smith - for permission to relax the rear yard setback requirements from 7.5m to 6.71m to allow construction of a sundeck on the dwelling at Glenwood Crescent North. Mr. R.D. Smith was present on behalf of his son and submitted a letter of authorization. Mr. Smith advised that they are permitted a 7-foot deck legally; however, they wish a 10-foot deck on a two-storey house with a good basement. He identified where the stairs exit the deck and explained how the plans have developed. In response to questions, Mr. Smith advised that the original plans included patio doors and a deck, but that the appeal is merely to permit a larger deck than is allowed by the by-law.

9 Appeal No Jim Frith Contracting Ltd. - for permission to relax the side yard setback requirements from 1.8m to 1.2m to allow construction of a hutch on the dwelling at Walnut Close. Barb Frith was present and advised the board that she had not received approval at the August Board of Variance meeting to relax the side yard to 1.62 metres for construction of a hutch on her own home. She noted that the appeal in August had been incorrectly stated and that they in fact require relaxation to 1.2 metres. The hutch was noted as two-foot deep. Appeal No Cameron - Appeal No Cameron - for permission to relax the front yard setback requirements from 7.5m to 3.66m to allow construction of a front entrance on the dwelling at 2882 MacKenzie Avenue. Mr. Cameron was present and advised the board that construction of the subject dwelling was originally permitted in 1977, but with Board of Variance approval. He advised that at the time, the dwelling suited his needs, but has found since that access/egress in times of emergency is inhibited; hence, the present appeal. He indicated the alteration to the front entrance including removal of a wall, relocation of a window and extension of the entrance would resolve the access/egress problem. He further indicated he wishes only to build to the previously-approved four-foot overhang. Appeal No Pamma - Appeal No Pamma - for permission to relax the rear yard setback requirements from 6m to 2.2m to allow construction of a residential garage at Street. Mr. Pamma was present and advised he has appealed to the Board of Variance four times and received approval for a 2.2-metre setback, but now wishes permission to extend the size of the private garage to permit storage for three cars and personal goods. He noted his nearest neighbour has a 14-foot setback on his property and that his own building actually fronts 88 Avenue. The garage design was described to include no windows, to include a mandoor to the front, and to be of masonry constructions as required by the Design Review Committee. It was further noted the top of the sundeck on the garage will be used as a roofed sundeck. It was the decision of the Board of Variance that this appeal be tabled, pending submission of the original construction plans and the minutes of the Design Review Committee. B. TABLED ITEMS: Appeal No Vandelft - Appeal No Vandelft - for permission to relax the front yard fence height requirement from 1.2m to 1.52m to allow construction of a fence at Street. Mr. Vandelft was present and advised the Board he is the registered owner of the property, which was sold to him by the original appellants, Mr. & Mrs. Rosengren. Mr. Vandelft advised he wishes the higher fence height to contain the family pet and to reduce the noise impact. He noted he wishes five feet of solid fence with one foot of lattice.

10 It was the decision of the Board of Variance that the appeal for relaxation of the fence height requirement be allowed for a solid fence of five feet with one foot of latticework. Appeal No Gervasio - Appeal No Gervasio - for permission to relax the rear yard setback requirements from 7.5m to 6.4m to allow construction of a back patio on the dwelling at Wellington Crescent. No one was present to speak to this appeal. It was the decision of the Board of Variance that this appeal be tabled sine die. Appeal No Van Unen - Appeal No Van Unen - for permission to relax the rear yard setback requirements from 7.5m to 5.87m to allow construction of a sundeck on the dwelling at Street. Mr. and Mrs. K. Thorburn of Street and Mrs. Birch of Street were present and expressed concern with the appeal, noting that permission for the requested relaxation may set a precedent in the area of encroachment on the covenanted area. They noted a reasonably-sized sundeck can be built without encroachment into the covenant on the subject lot. The neighbours were advised that the Board of Variance is unsure yet as to its jurisdiction with respect to this appeal. It was the decision of the Board of Variance that this appeal be tabled, pending submission of complete documentation. Mrs. Bradley of A Avenue reentered the meeting to speak to Appeal Schmidt. She advised the board that her husband and Mr. Murray, another neighbour of the subject property, wished to attend the meeting to speak to the appeal; whereupon, she was advised that the appeal had been heard and the matter could not be discussed any further. C. ADOPTION OF MINUTES: The minutes of the Board of Variance meeting held on August 15, 1989, were adopted. D. OTHER COMPETENT BUSINESS: There was no other competent business. E. NEXT MEETING: The next Board of Variance meeting will be held on Tuesday, October 17, F. ADJOURNMENT: The Board of Variance meeting adjourned at 2:15 p.m. CLKMIN 4716