Board of Variance Minutes Council Chamber City Hall 14245-56 Avenue Surrey, B.C. THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 2005 Time: 9:00 a.m. Present: Chairperson - M. Cooper J. Gorman S. Round Absent: G. Friend E. Vantol Staff Present: J. McKenzie Manager, Residential Section - Planning & Development D. Hoey Planning Technician, Area Planning & Development Division Planning & Development C. Bonneville Secretary A. TABLED APPEALS There were no tabled appeals. B. NEW APPEALS 1. Appeal No. 05-04 - Furness/Hildebrand For permission to relax the front yard setback requirement from 18 m to 13.1 m to allow retention of an accessory building at 2308-134 Street. Ms. D'Arcy Furness and Mr. Ken Hildebrand, the Appellants, were in attendance to discuss the appeal. The Manager, Residential Section, confirmed the following information: The property is zoned Half-Acre Residential Gross Density Zone (RH-G). The Appellants are requesting a variance to the front yard setback from a building accessory to the single family dwelling on the lot. In the RH-G Zone, accessory buildings associated with the single family dwelling on a lot are required to have an 18 meter front yard setback, regardless of whether or not the accessory building is greater than 10 square meters in size and regardless of whether or not the accessory building requires a building permit. In this appeal it is requested that the minimum required front yard setback be reduced from 18 meters to 13.1 meters. Building scheme approval will be required prior to the issuance of the building permit. The Appellant provided the following comments: We have provided a lengthy explanation in our letter of January 20, 2005 to the Board. h:\bov\minutes\2005\min bov 2005 02 17.doc seh 07/05/10 13:49 PM Page 1
We had relied on a contractor with 20 years experience in Surrey and he also provided excellent references. The contractor had advised that for a building less than 100 square feet no building permit would be required. However he did not realize that the installation of a toilet and sink requires a building permit regardless of the size of the building. The location of the accessory building was chosen to allow the needed toilet and sink, this was the only feasible location given the dimensions of the pool and the available space on the property. We have a son diagnosed with velo-cardio-facial-syndrome and autism whose developmental delays necessitate easy access to facilities. We would like to provide a safe form of exercise and social enjoyment for our son in a controlled setting. To remove the accessory building would cause much difficulty and there is no other logical place to locate the building. We have great respect for our neighbours and have spoken to them regarding our appeal, three were very supportive and the other two were unable to comment as they were out of country. We have made a pledge to complete the landscaping and plant pyramid cedars across the front fence to match the row of cedars on the south side of our property. Once this landscaping is complete the accessory building will not be visible from any position outside of our property. That the letter, from the appellants, and the petition with three signatures from the adjacent property owners, be received. In response to a question from the Board, the Planning Technician, Area Planning & Development Division advised that the building scheme, completed in 1992, and registered on title is silent on the issue before the board. There were no neighbours present to speak to this appeal. That Appeal No. 05-04 be allowed provided that the landscaping be completed as presented by the Appellant at today s hearing. the decision of the Board of Variance that the Appeal 05-04 be allowed. 2. Appeal No. 05-05 - Bennett/Lewis For permission to relax the side yard setback requirement from 1.8 m to 1.56 m to allow renovation to the single family dwelling at 13038-14A Avenue. h:\bov\minutes\2005\min bov 2005 02 17.doc Page 2
Mr. Robert Chestor of Kerr Construction, Agent for Mr. Cris Bennett & Ms. Kayce Lewis, the Appellants, was in attendance to discuss the appeal. The Manager, Residential Section, confirmed the following information: The property is located in the Single Family Residential Zone (RF). The required side yard setback is 1.8m. The building division has a record of a building permit for a 14 x 26 carport in 1959 (in conjunction with a permit for a dwelling) and another building permit was issued in 1966 for an addition of 14 x 14 to the carport. It is not clear how the carport was constructed with non-conforming setback. The initial structure appears to have been accepted in 1962. There is no record of inspections for the later addition. In conjunction with an overall renovation of the dwelling, the appellants propose to convert their existing carport into a garage. The existing side yard setback will not be reduced, however, construction of a solid wall where currently only posts exist is considered to increase the non-conformity with respect to the side yard setback. The Appellants existing carport does not meet the spatial separation requirement of the current BC Building Code. The spatial separation requirements limit the area of opening allowed in a wall exposed to a property line. The intent is to limit the likelihood of fire spreading from one building to another. The openings in the carport (almost 100%) exceed the allowable for the setback (approx. 8%). The proposed construction will be required to be constructed in compliance with the Building Code. The Agent provided the following comments: The owners recently purchased the property for its potential to be renovated to create an ideal home to raise their family. The owners are a young family and wish to add a second storey to the dwelling for their growing family. The owners wish to improve the deficiencies in the old house and retain as much of the existing structure as possible. The renovation will include enclosing the existing carport to provide safety and security of the family. The non-conformity will be reduced by the removal of the shed. In response to questions from the Board, the Agent responded: During renovation a significant part of the existing building will be utilized. There will be no addition to the carport. The project requires a structural engineer and he will supervise the construction and has already made a review of the footings. There was no feedback from the surrounding neighbours. The renovation to the carport is an extension of the existing non-conformity; we are filling in the carport with new walls and windows. h:\bov\minutes\2005\min bov 2005 02 17.doc Page 3
The Chair noted that the requested relaxation should state that the variance is for an extension of an non-conformity. There were no neighbours present to speak to this appeal. Moved by J. Gorman Seconded by S. Round That Appeal No. 05-05 be allowed, with the amendment of including the words an extension of an non-conformity. the decision of the Board of Variance that the Appeal 05-05 be allowed. 3. Appeal No. 05-06 - Paterson For permission to relax the flanking (east) yard setback requirement from 3.6 m to 1.8 m to allow construction of a single family residence at 12830-13 Avenue. Ms. Barbara Paterson, the Appellant, was in attendance to discuss the appeal. The Manager, Residential Section, confirmed the following information: The property is located in the Single Family Residential Zone (RF). The lot is a corner lot with the shorter property line along 13 Avenue, being the front lot line, 128A Street being the side yard on a flanking street. The Engineering Department advise that there are no plans, neither short term nor long term, to open this section of roadway. The Appellants propose to construct a house on the property and are requesting a relaxation of the flanking side yard setback from 2.43 meters to 1.8 meters. The BoV previously granted a variance of this flanking side yard from 3.6 meters to 2.43 meters (April 2004). A relaxation was also granted with respect to the front yard setback, reducing the minimum front yard setback from 7.5 meters to 4.5 meters (April 2004). This relaxation was to accommodate a side entry garage at the front of the house. In the RF zone, under specified conditions, the front yard setback fro a side entry garage is 4.5 meters. In this case, the submitted design did not meet the required conditions and therefore the 7.5-meter front yard setback was applicable. The Appellant provided the following: We are requesting to have the property flanking the east side yard set back varied from 3.6 meters to 1.83 meters. Due to the extra depth of the excavation for the south facing footings which must be below the 2 to 1 slope line engineering requirement, the excavation area for the house foundation will encroach onto the neighbour s property to the east. h:\bov\minutes\2005\min bov 2005 02 17.doc Page 4
There are several older trees just on the neighbour s side of the east property line that we would like to take every precaution to save. We have spoken to our neighbours and they would like to retain the trees. There were no neighbours present to speak to this appeal. That Appeal No. 05-06 be allowed. the decision of the Board of Variance that the Appeal 05-06 be allowed. The meeting recessed at 9:38 a.m. and reconvened with the same Board member in attendance at 10:10 a.m. C. ADOPTION OF MINUTES That the minutes of the Board of Variance meeting of January 20, 2005 be approved as circulated. D. OTHER COMPETENT BUSINESS 1. The notification letter were approved by the Board and initialed by the Chair. 2. Farm Practices Protection (Right to Farm ) Act. The Board received the Act for their future reference. 3. The Chair requested that the agenda package not be stapled. 4. S. Round advised that he would be absent from the April hearing of the Board. 5. The Board reviewed the Board of Variance application guide and requested that the Secretary send the guide to Lidstone, Young, Anderson, for Raymond Young, the Board of Variance s lawyer to review. Moved by J. Gorman Seconded by S. Round That the Secretary forward the Board of Variance Application Guide to Raymond Young, the Board of Variance s lawyer, for his review and edit. h:\bov\minutes\2005\min bov 2005 02 17.doc Page 5
6. The Board requested that the Secretary contact D. Hoey to arrange his retirement lunch within the next couple weeks, as D. Hoey has advised that he would not be able to attend the next hearing of the Board. E. NEXT MEETING The next meeting of the Board of Variance will be held on Thursday, March 17, 2005 at 9:00 a.m. F. ADJOURNMENT The Board of Variance meeting adjourned at 10:30 a.m. Margaret Jones, City Clerk Marie Cooper, Chair, Board of Variance h:\bov\minutes\2005\min bov 2005 02 17.doc Page 6