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. Round Regrets: Staff Present: J. McKenzie Manager, Residential Section - Planning & Development L. Pitcairn Planner, North Surrey Division - Planning & Development L. Luaifoa Secretary A. TABLED APPEALS B. NEW APPEALS 1. Appeal No. 11-31 - Kuczko For permission to relax the flanking yard (King George Boulevard) setback requirement from 30.0 m to 21.90 m. Henryk Kuczko was in attendance to discuss the appeal. This lot is located in the General Agriculture Zone (A-1) The lot is also located in the ALR and in a floodplain for which the Flood Construction Level is 3.6 metres. The lot is a corner lot, with the shortest lot line being along 48 Avenue. The lot line abutting 48 Avenue is the front line and the lot line abutting King George Boulevard is the flanking side yard. The Appellant provided the following comments concerning hardship: If the shop is built closer to the east, it would interfere with the driveway to the house and it will be too close to the existing building. The area has no plantation where the shop would be built. With the two buildings together; the existing building and the new building, the area will be too small to enter the house. The use of the proposed building is for the storage of tractors, lawnmowers and equipment that currently sit outside on the property. There were no neighbours present to speak to this appeal. h:\bov\minutes\2011\min bov 2011 12 14.docx Page 1 M
Members of the Board made the following concluding comments regarding the variance or exemption to relieve hardship: The proposed building won t impact anything such as obstructing any neighbour's view. The current location is the best place to put the building. The structure will not be taking up any usable farmland. Moved by K. Nice That the appeal be allowed. 2 Appeal No. 11-32 - Miller For permission to relax the height requirement of a flat roof from 7.3 m. to 8.3 m. and to relax the second storey coverage requirement from 80% to 91.2%. Sandra Miller was in attendance to discuss the appeal. The lot is located in the Single Family Residential Zone (RF). The maximum permitted floor area of a second storey for a principal building shall not exceed 80% of the first storey including attached garage. The RF Zone limits the height of a principal building with a flat roof to not more than 7.3 metres. The Appellant provided the following comments concerning hardship: The house was bought in 1998 and at that time there were only 2 adults living in the house. In the last four years, the family has blended and there are now 4 children. There are 2 bedrooms upstairs and one bathroom and it is not conducent as the boys share a room downstairs and the girls share a room upstairs and we would like all the children to be on same floor. To stay within the budget, we need to work with the existing footprint to fit 4 bedrooms on the floor. An extra room is needed on the main floor to accommodate my Mother, who will be moving in. A flat roof would not be able to hide the roof line of the existing structure and neighbours wouldn t like the look of the house. A flat roof produces a visual impact of a lower roof line than a pointed roof. There were no neighbours present to speak to this appeal. At the request of the Board, the Secretary read the correspondence received from the neighbour at 12561 27th Avenue who was not in support of the application. h:\bov\minutes\2011\min bov 2011 12 14.docx Page 2
Moved by S. Round Seconded by K. Nice That Appeal No. 11-32 be allowed 3 Appeal No. 11-33 - Zu For permission to relax the south side yard setback requirement from 4.5 m to 3.4 m and to relax the lot coverage requirement from 20% to 24%. Martin Kanters, Westland Developments Ltd. was in attendance as the agent to the appellant. The lot is located in the Acreage Residential Gross Density Zone (RA-G). The minimum requirement side yard setback is 4.5 metres for the principal building. The maximum lot coverage is 20%. Moved by K. Nice That the letter of authorization be received. The agent provided the following comments concerning hardship: Mr. Zu and his wife purchased the house in September and realized the garage at the rear is 72ft from the back door and the possibility of building a covered area was discussed at that time. A covered area would provide easier access to the house and provide protection during bad weather. The current garage has a slight downgrade and when it snows it becomes a hazard to move from the garage to house. Portico structures are common in the area and an option that has been discussed. A Portico structure would maintain the roofline with the existing rooflines and would not increase in height. The other proposal is to enlarge the rear bedroom which is the master bedroom. The original design square feet are smaller than the proportionate size of the other rooms in the house. They would like to build an addition for a better room layout and to provide a sitting area in the bedroom. The micro fused plans received from the city were illegible and the contractor disposed of the original drawings. The Zu's are reluctant to spend money to create elevation plans. The sketches provided show the footprint of the master bedroom and proposed bedroom. There were no neighbours present to speak to this appeal. h:\bov\minutes\2011\min bov 2011 12 14.docx Page 3
Members of the Board made the following comments regarding the variance or exemption to relieve hardship: It is important that the BOV has visual rendering of what this proposal looks like and what is going to be built. There is not sufficient information at the present time to make a decision. Ensure that plans submitted cover everything you want. Moved by D. Kenny Seconded by A. Pease That Appeal No. 11-33 be deferred to the January BOV meeting, pending receipt of the appropriate plans which includes the elevation plans for the bedroom portion. 4 Appeal No. 11-34 - Dhaliwal For permission to relax the front yard setback requirement (building base line after the road allowance on 84 Avenue) from 7.5 m. to 4.558. Gurbachan Singh Dhaliwal was in attendance to speak to the appeal. Harwinder Singh Dhaliwal and Nav Sandu (15445 111A Avenue) were also in attendance as agents of the Appellant. The lot is located in the Single Family Gross Density (RF-G) Zone. The minimum required front yard setback for the principal building is 7.5 metres. The subdivision creating this lot was registered in August 2007. At that time, 1000 metres was dedicated as 84 Avenue in order to comply with the road width required at that time. In March 2011 the required road width was increased to 24 metres, essentially requiring that an additional metre (roughly) be reserved for the road allowance. 84 Avenue is designated as a collector road. The Major Road Allowance map, width increases in required road allowances was approved by Council in March 2011. As the proposed site for the single family dwelling does not meet the standard minimum required setback, nor any of the variable setback options, it is necessary for the owner to request a relaxation from the standard 7.5 metre front yard setback to 4.558 metres. Jamie Boan, Manager of Transportation provided a presentation on the amended policy for Road Allowances and Setback Baselines. The proposed process for Development Applications at Board of Variance would be as follows: Site reviewed by interdepartmental committee h:\bov\minutes\2011\min bov 2011 12 14.docx Page 4
Staff presentation/briefing made to BOV regarding surrounding conditions and implications of request If asked/desired, City staff view of request could be offered Members of the Board made the following comments: It would be helpful for Engineering staff to be in attendance to speak to an appeal and provide detailed information when there are appeals concerning the Engineering department. This will assist the BOV with granting or refusing a request. Moved by K. Nice That the letter of authorization be received. The Appellant provided the following comments concerning hardship: When the subdivision was created, it was created under the original by-law. The owner bought the house based on the old guidelines that he had been provided. The other properties sit further up and this property will sit further back with the new by-law. The house will be smaller under the old by-law requirements as the original plan is for 4600 sq ft. and with 1 m setback, the original plan decreases by 200 sq ft. It shortens everything and makes it tighter. The developer realtor was surprised at the new by-law as well. Members of the Board made the following comments regarding the variance or exemption to relieve hardship: There is a hardship as it relates to the relationship of other houses and the City has not reported any future road widening. We have to take into consideration the hardship, but also good planning and good planning would have a new subdivision with consistent setbacks. In the same subdivision, you will have two houses at one setback and a third house at a different setback. There is a hardship and that is the regulation has changed on the Appellant. The Manager, Residential Section commented that: There is public notification of changes to a by-law. Nonetheless, when a by-law passes, things take awhile to trickle down, both for the general public and for the City staff. The requested relaxation to the required setback reads the way it does because the zone includes variable setback options and if you don t meet all the requirements of the variable setback option, the City reverts back to the basic 7.5 m setback as set out for the zone. The Appellant did not meet the variable setback requirement. The left side of the house is set forward which would h:\bov\minutes\2011\min bov 2011 12 14.docx Page 5
ordinarily be acceptable as a one storey element at 5.5 m. The 5.5 m doesn t work though, as the actual setback is closer to 4.5m. As a result it appears that the Appellant is asking for a lot more than a one metre variance whereas in terms of the variable siting option the proposal is only one meter off. If the Appellant applied before March, the 1 metre of net relaxation would have been ok. The Manager, Transportation commented that: The road is constructed to the ultimate (old standard and dedication to the 22 m). It makes sense to provide a relaxation to be equivalent variation of 1 m. This is not a location where the road is expected to be widened. Moved by S. Round That Appeal No. 11-34 be allowed The meeting recessed at 10:15 am and resumed at 10:30 am. C. ADOPTION OF MINUTES Moved by D. Kenny Seconded by K. Nice That the minutes of the Board of Variance meeting of September 19, 2011 be approved as circulated. D. OTHER COMPETENT BUSINESS 1. The notification letters to be approved by the Board and initialled by the Chair. E. NEXT MEETING The next meeting of the Board of Variance will be held on Wednesday, January 11, 2012 at 9:00 a.m. F. ADJOURNMENT The Board of Variance meeting adjourned at 10:51 a.m. Losa Luaifoa, Secretary Marie Cooper - Chairperson h:\bov\minutes\2011\min bov 2011 12 14.docx Page 6