CITY OF VICTORIA BOARD OF VARIANCE MINUTES MARCH 10, 2016 Present: Absent: Staff: Peggy Pederson, Chair Trevor Moat Andrew Rushforth Rus Collins Jaime Hall Tom Pebernat, Senior Planning Technician Quinn Anglin, Secretary The meeting was called to order at 12:22 pm. 1. Minutes: Meeting of February 11, 2016 Moved: Trevor Moat Seconded: Andrew Rushforth That the minutes of February 11, 2016, be adopted as amended: Have Trevor Moats comments removed after the motion failed for 1712 Haultain Street, BOV# 00576. Adjust the proposed relaxation for side yard setback to 4.5m (14.76') to 3.0m (9.8'). 2. Appeals 12:30 of Variance Appeal #00577 Mr. Keith Greenhalgh and Ms. Deborah Anderson; /Owner 309 Niagara Street R-2 Two Family Dwelling with Basement Suite with Basement Suite The proposal is to construct a garage in the side yard, west of the existing main building. The proposal requires variance for location of accessory building in the side yard. Schedule F Section 1 Relaxation Requested Relaxation to permit accessory building in side yard.
of Variance Minutes Page 2 of 7 Mr. and Mrs. Greenhalgh, Owner/s were present. The reason they are asking for a variance is for constructing an accessory building to be used as a single car garage for a collector car that they bought. They have a lot of palm trees in the back yard (some that are 20 ft. high) that they don t want to chop down so are asking for variance so that they can build the garage in the side yard instead of the back and store the car there in the garage to keep it safe They have several neighbours that were canvassed about the application that noted they would prefer it to be here than anywhere else (i.e. the backyard) as they would rather look at a garden than a building or garage in the back from their homes. They had their designer keep the garage design in line with the design of the home so that it looks like it was an original structure and matches the rest of the street façade of the home It seems from the application that this garage is not large. Public portion of the meeting closed If the garage were attached to the house would the setback be the same as the house? o Yes it would be the same. Moved: Andrew Rushforth Seconded: Trevor Moat That the following variances be allowed: Schedule F Section 1 Relaxation to permit accessory building in side yard. 12:50 of Variance Appeal #00578 Mr. Pargat Sandhu, /Owner; Sunny Kahlon, Modern Home Design; Designer 1712 Haultain Street R1 B - with Secondary Suite
of Variance Minutes Page 3 of 7 The amended proposal is to construct a new single family dwelling with secondary suite. Section 1.2.5.c Section 1.2.5.d Relaxation(s) Requested Side yard setback (west) relaxed from 3.0m (9.8') to 1.5m (4.9'). Combined side yard setbacks from 4.5m (14.76') to 3.0m (9.8'). Mr. Pargat Singh, /Owner; and Mr. Sunny Kahlon, Modern Home Design, Designer; were present. At the last application meeting some of the issues that were brought to attention were: o The opposition from the neighbour located at 1716 Haultain, and how the light in her home and the access to the suite would be affected by the proposal. o The neighbor on the other side was concerned about the trees on the yard and whether they were protected or not. Since the last meeting they had a city arborist come to see about the trees on the property and report they reported back that there are no concerns about the trees on the property in relation to the proposed plans. They had the house flipped so that the concerns of the neighbour with light and suite access would no longer be an issue. The design of the home has stayed the same with the flip nothing at all has changed In the notes on the site plan there is a scribble that identifies what looks to be a plum tree to be removed, but you are indicating that all that needs to happen is to relocate the apron for the driveway? o Yes, there is also a power pole there that we decided to move the way the driveway functions, and wrap around it so that the pole and the tree can stay. Public portion of the meeting closed Confident that the had a good discussion about the application at the previous meeting and feel that the applicant has made every effort to accommodate the neighbours in line with what was discussed. The applicant has come back with an application that seemingly provides a good solution for everyone. To be noted that the actual drafting date on the plans never got changed from original submission, and should be amended to be correct. Noted correction to where the south elevation was identified on the plans.
of Variance Minutes Page 4 of 7 Moved: Trevor Moat Seconded: Andrew Rushforth That the following variances be allowed: Section 1.2.5.c Section 1.2.5.d Side yard setback (west) relaxed from 3.0m (9.8') to 1.5m (4.9'). Combined side yard setbacks from 4.5m (14.76') to 3.0m (9.8'). 1:10 of Variance Appeal #00579 Mr. Bo Lum; Owner, Tyko Designs Ltd; /Designer 959 Pembroke Street R-2 Two Family Dwelling Triplex Conversion The proposal is to convert the existing building to a triplex and make changes to street facade. Schedule G - Section 6.b Schedule G - Section 6.e Relaxation(s) Requested Relaxation to permit unenclosed floor space for deck at the rear of building. Relaxation to permit exterior changes to the street façade. Schedule G - Section 6.f Relaxation to permit the addition of stairs / entranceway exceeding 1.5m (4.9'). Doug Ko, ; were present. Intent is to convert the existing 1913 house into 3 units on each floor to a triplex. They are not intending to increase any actual living space in the proposal. The first requested variance is for the front canopy (glass and steel) that was installed by a previous owner around 1998, and was submitted to the city as a building permit application, but the final inspection was never completed so felt it was important to include it as part of their application.
of Variance Minutes Page 5 of 7 The second variance is for window and door openings that they would like to provide access to for units in the home, as well as for light and ventilation. The third variance requested is for addition of stairs for access to units and a back deck for the occupants for enjoyment of their home. There is an existing front entry deck which covers part of the basement which isn t fully developed and they would like to make it so this requires them adding some waterproofing to the existing deck so that it can make code and there would be no damage to the building. In summary, the variances requested are to support fire safety, ventilation, and access are the only requests that they are looking for at this time. When the initial review had happened for this application there was variance that was missed in relationship to the deck on the second floor under the current bylaw it does not allow for that. The city missed in tagging of this variance and it is required. Therefor the board is not able to render a decision today as they need to send out a notification to the neighbours about these additional variances before the decision can be made. The drawings also seem to be missing some information the drawings need to be updated and clearer so the information is correct and can be followed as far as what the applicant plans to do on the drawings and not just in the letter. Most of the info that is missing is in regards to grade. There are also some discontinuous pieces on the front which need to be fixed. There was also a previous permit that was applied for, the work done and the only missing piece being that it never got its final inspection. This should be a permits issue and not necessarily tagged as a variance at this stage unless there was some further work that needed to be done beyond the front door modification. Clarified what the applicant intends to do on the plans and what they need to change in order to have the application move forward with their application at a following meeting. Closed the public part of the meeting Moved: Trevor Moat Seconded: Rus Collins That the application be adjourned to a following meeting to further identify the needed variances for the existing second storey deck and plans to be more clearly resubmitted as outlined.
of Variance Minutes Page 6 of 7 1:30 of Variance Appeal #00580 Mr. Andrew Woodsworth and Mrs. Petronella Woodsworth; /Owner 28 Marlborough Street R1-B The proposal is for an upper floor dormer addition to improve the floor to ceiling clearance in the upper floor bathroom. Relaxation Requested Section 1.2.4.a Height of building relaxed from 7.5m (24.9') to 8.3m (27.23') to and the number of storeys from 2 to 2.5 to accommodate for addition to existing dormer. (Note: there is no change to the existing building height and number of storeys, these variances relate only to the dormer addition) Ryan Wyllie, /Designer, Andrew and Petronella Woodsworth, Owners; were present. The home was built in 1923, is 3 levels and is mostly original from built. The home is a single family residence. Purpose is to legalize the existing height from grade in order to pursue building permits for a modest addition. The property is currently in a R1-B zone and permits a height of 7.6 m and the building currently has a height of 8.3 m based off the existing dormer to the ridge. The relaxation requested with the height from grade will allow them to expand the dormer while still maintaining the existing height. The proposed work complies with the remainder of the zoning bylaw and does not propose any further relaxation of bylaw. The proposal shows that they are keeping with the original design in relation to height and massing. Relaxing the proposed height is vital to the proposed property improvements. The original bathroom upstairs is quite small and services both of the bedrooms there. With the proposal it would allow them to also install a shower, which is more accessible and therefor serves a better purpose for the owners and the two bedrooms upstairs. Mentioned that the drawings that were submitted were very helpful for the application.
of Variance Minutes Page 7 of 7 Moved: Andrew Rushforth Seconded: Trevor Moat That the following variances be allowed: Section 1.2.4.a Height of building relaxed from 7.5m (24.9') to 8.3m (27.23') to and the number of storeys from 2 to 2.5 to accommodate for addition to existing dormer. (Note: there is no change to the existing building height and number of storeys, these variances relate only to the dormer addition) Meeting Adjourned: 1:44 pm W:\ of Variance\Minutes\BOV Minutes Template.doc