to allow construction of an addition to an existing home at Lark Place.

Transcription

1 Tuesday, July 15, 1997 Committee Room City Hall Avenue Surrey, B.C. Tuesday, July 15, 1997 Time: 9:03 a.m. Present: Staff Present: Chairperson - M. Cooper C. van den Broek Manager, Residential Section Deputy Chair - K. Kang L. Pitcairn Planning Assistant, Area Planning & Development Division - B. Dack Planning & Development E. MacLean A. Friesen Administrative Coordinator H. Jacques Board of Variance Clerk A. NEW APPEALS Appeal No Jackie Wickett & Derek Coolen relax the front yard setback requirement from 7.5m to 5.62m to allow construction of an addition to an existing home at Lark Place. Ms J. Wickett was in attendance to discuss the appeal. Ms Wicket indicated she has a growing family and would like to add to the existing house as her teenage daughter does not have a closet and an additional bathroom is now required. Ms Wicket advised the house is enclosed by fences, large trees and landscaping, therefore the addition would not be noticeable. The Board noted there was a previous appeal #91-75 to allow construction of a garage. Ms. Wickett advised she has owned the house for 6 years. Appeal No Great Hand Enterprises Co. Ltd./Mr. James Chen - Improved Better Life Inv. Corp. relax the east side yard setback requirement from 4.5m to 1.8m relax the west side yard setback requirement from 4.5m to 1.8m to allow construction of a single family residence at Avenue. Mr. H. Beugalink was in attendance to discuss the appeal. Mr. Beugalink advised he purchased the property from another company and would like to build a home at the North end. He advised his request for the

2 relaxation to the side yard setbacks is a result of a cul-de-sac which will continue on in the future. As well, he indicated he would like to position the house so it will not be negatively impacted in the future. It was Moved by E. MacLean Seconded by K. Kang That the letter of authorization on page 20 be received. The Board noted other homes in the cul-de-sac have 6 ft. set back. The Planning Assistant confirmed the zoning for this area is RA and verified the dimensions of the property as 180 m x 60 m. The Planning Assistant reported there is 6.5 m dedicated for Sumac Place and the cul-de-sac bulb which would affect the location of house. Mr. Beugalink confirmed Cameron & Associates and Hy Engineering have drawn plans to show the proposed siting for the house would be appropriate for the property. In response to a query from the Board regarding how that the front yard is determined, the Planning Assistant confirmed the front yard is the shortest side fronting a road. The Board queried the possibility of the property being subdivided. The Planning Assistant confirmed the Concept Plan of the southern part of property has to be developed with other property neighbors. Mr. Beugalink confirmed that he spoke to Engineering and Planning & Development regarding this issue and he was advised a road could be put in at the north end of property from the cul-de-sac. The Board queried if there are avenues to ensure the proposed dwelling falls within building scheme for subdivision. The Manager, Residential Section confirmed the property is not part of the subdivision and as a result, there is no building scheme. The Chair read the letter and petition dated June 14, 1997, from the residents of Sumac Place into the record. Seconded by B. Dack That the letter be received The Manager, Residential Section, confirmed that as there is access from 104th Street, the property is a legal lot and therefore is eligible for a building permit. The Assistant Planner advised future development will happen in this area and if the dwelling is not sited properly, a portion of the house may have to be removed later on. The Manager, Residential Section advised an option for Mr. Beugalink would be going through the Development Variance Permit process where the Development Variance Permit would run with the title of the land.

3 The Assistant Planner confirmed the legal lot frontage is 104 Avenue, although access and service connections is available from Sumac Place. Sumac Place would provide service to the existing lot and for further development. The Manager, Residential Section stated that 104 Avenue is classified as an arterial road and properties on 104 Avenue have special setbacks and driveway access is not permitted as these properties have access from a lane. Mr. F. Srapka, of Sumac Place, was in attendance to offer support for this project providing the driveway access finishes off the cul-de-sac. It was the decision of the Board of Variance that this appeal be not allowed. Appeal No Rodney & Sharee Bourke relax the front yard setback requirement from 18m to 14.73m to allow the construction of a swimming pool at Avenue. Mr. Rodney Bourke was in attendance to discuss this appeal. Mr. Bourke advised the back of his lot has a steep slope that would require a retaining wall and extensive excavation. He advised the proposed set back to the front yard will not affect anyone else. Mr. Bourke confirmed the house is two storeys and a basement and his is aware the basement cannot be higher than the pool. He advised he will consult a Geotechnical engineer if the pool is within 10 feet from the house. In response to a query from the Board regarding the siting of the pool, Mr. Bourke confirmed he could not move the pool back the required 12 feet as the slope starts at feet and as a result of the fill, the foundation for the pool could be unstable. It was the decision of the Board that this appeal be allowed. Appeal No Lynn DeBoon & Jennifer & Kathleen Smith relax the west side yard setback requirement from 4.5m to 2.13m relax the east side yard setback requirement from 4.5m to 2.13m increase the lot coverage from 20% to 27.4% to allow construction of a house and garage at A Avenue. Henry and Anne Marie Poschner of Street, were in attendance on behalf of the owners for this appeal.

4 Seconded by B. Dack That the letter of authorization on page 41 be received. Mr. Poscher advised there is not enough room in the side yards to build a house within the zoning requirements. The Assistant Planner confirmed a property 900 sq. m or less can comply with side yard requirements, but the property is 914 sq. m., only 14 sq. m. over, but not a one acre lot. In response to a query from the Board regarding the increase in site coverage, the Manager, Residential Section advised there were with no concerns as the proposed dwelling is keeping with the other homes and the RF Zone allows for 40% coverage. Appeal No Greater Vancouver Water District relax the side yard setback requirement from 4.5m to 1.58m to allow construction of the secondary disinfection station at Avenue Mr. Doug Neden was in attendance to discuss this appeal. It was Moved by B. Dack Seconded by K. Kang That the letter of authorization on page 46 be received. Mr. Neden confirmed the Greater Vancouver Water Districts intention to build a disinfection station adjacent to the water storage tank. He advised once the design for the new station was completed, it was discovered there are plans for road widening which would change the setback requirements and as a result, the building would have to be moved. Mr. Neden advised there are additional landscaping plans to screen the water storage tank as it is quite tall and the concrete building will be aesthetically pleasing to the neighborhood. In response to a query from the Board regarding the mandatory setbacks from an arterial road, the Manager, Residential Section confirmed 40 ft from center line is required. The Board noted the property to the east is owned by BC Gas. Ms S. Ragoss of Avenue was in attendance to determine how the development would affect her property.

5 Appeal No Ronald & Ann Threlkeld relax the rear yard setback requirement from 1.8m to 1.46m to allow construction of a garden storage shed at A Street. Mr. Ronald Threlkeld was in attendance to discuss this appeal. Mr. Threlkeld indicated he laid a foundation for a shed two years ago in order to finish landscaping his property. He advised his real estate agent suggested he obtain a permit for the shed in case he wishes to sell the property in the future. Mr. Threlkeld advised the shed fits in with the rest of the landscaping was concerned he would loose his investment in the footings if the variance was not granted. In response to a query from the Board regarding the siting of the shed, Mr. Threlkeld advised the shed is 240 sq. ft and the shed was noted on the original plans, although he had estimated the setbacks for property line. He indicated that when he applied for a permit, the Planning & Development department confirmed the foundation was laid one foot too close to the property line. In response to a query from the Board regarding Section 215 covenants on the property, Mr. Threlkeld advised the creek preservation covenant was in effect before the properties were subdivided. In response to a query from the Board regarding the possibility of moving the foundation without creating structural difficulty, Mr. Threlkeld advised there is no room and one tree that is not shown on the plans is 16 inches in diameter. Mr. Threlkeld indicated the shed needed to be quite large as it is the main storage for the house and T-shape was in keeping with the architecture of the house. Mr. T. Chung of A Avenue indicated he is in favor the appeal as long as it does not damage his property. Appeal No Erik and Josephine Voute relax the rear yard setback requirement from 7.5m to 5.5m to allow construction of a 2-storey home at Street. Erik and Josephine Voute were in attendance to discuss this appeal. Mr. Voute confirmed they want to add width to home for 3 car garage. He also advised due to the configuration of the property, the rear yard could be considered the side yard. Mr. Voute stated he recently acquired the site and did not realize the difficulty with property and developing plans that would be within the building guidelines. He advised the relaxation of the rear yard setback would allow the dwelling to encroach on to the greenbelt and would not affect his neighbours. In response to a query from the Board regarding their jurisdiction respecting building schemes, the Manager, Residential Section advised the building scheme is supplemental to the City bylaws and therefore, this appeal

6 falls within the Boards jurisdiction. Mr. P. Donaldson of Street expressed concern with the siting of the Voutes residence. Appeal No Vincent and Bernadette Woodlock relax the front yard setback requirement from 7.5m to 6.3m to allow construction of a proposed porch at A Avenue. Mr. Woodlock was in attendance to discuss this appeal. Mr. Woodlock advised he is remodeling their house and has moved the entrance from the side to the front of the house and as a result, requests a relaxation to the front yard setback. He advised the house is existing, therefore, they cannot move the structure or change their plans. The site coverage is already at maximum on their 50 ft x 100 ft lot. It was the decision of the Board of Variance that this appeal be disallowed, in compliance with Bylaw 6477 sec. 22. Appeal No BC Ltd. relax the rear yard setback requirement from 7.5m to 2.46m to allow retention of the existing house at Marine Drive. Mr. Bill Krueger, of CitiWest Construction was in attendance to discuss this appeal. Seconded by E. MacLean That the letter of authorization on page 154 be received. Mr. Krueger advised the property is one of two existing lots that have been subdivided to create 4 separate lots and he is requesting the Board to grant permission to retain the existing house on the property. The 1100 sq. ft. rancher is 30 years old. Mr. Krueger advised they are currently constructing a lane parallel to Marine Drive at 135A and 136 Avenue between the new lots and the existing house. He further advised there is a demolition bond posted for the subdivision, but would like to retain the house as it will still be used for a number of years. Ms M. McTague of Avenue advised the subdivision has changed neighborhood and expressed concern about the future of the house.

7 In response to a query from the Board regarding site access, the Planning Assistant advised that according to page 186, the Municipal Engineering can determine if access will continue from Marine Drive (extension of existing home conformity). It was the decision of the Board of Variance that this appeal be not allowed. Appeal No Harinder & Reshpal Sethi relax the south side yard setback requirement from 4.5m to 3.97m to allow retention of a bay window and hutch at Coulthard Road. Harinder and Reshpal Sethi were in attendance to discuss this appeal. Mr. Sethi advised their plans were approved by the City and it was later determined there was a problem with the conformity of the plans. The Manager, Residential Section advised the length of the hutch, in combination with the bay window is creating a problem with by-law. He further advised the amended drawings were approved under the existing permit. William and Bodil Pointon of Coulthard advised they are opposed to any further relaxations and the neighborhood is opposed to the subdivision. Mr. Pointon advised that trees have already been cut down and stucco has put on in anticipation of the Boards approval. Ms Pointon advised she is opposed to any further relaxation as the bay window is large and very intrusive and looks into their back yard. She advised their contractor for their home carefully built with in building guidelines. Mr. Don Bennett of Coulthard Road and representing the West Panorama Rate payers Association advised the new homes have changed the character of the neighborhood and trees have been cut in discrimination of tree covenant on the property and requested the Board to deny this variance. The Chair read the letter dated July 8, 1997, from Mr. M. McBurney of th Avenue expressing his opposition to the reduction of the normal setbacks. Seconded by E. MacLean That the letter from Mr. McBurney be received. In response to a query from the Board regarding the removal of the trees, Mr. Sethi confirmed everything was done legally and he did not cut down the trees as they were cut before property was purchased. The Chair called a recess for lunch from 11:35 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 12:31 p.m.

8 B. ADOPTION OF MINUTES The minutes of the Board of Variance meeting held on May 20, 1997 to be adopted. Seconded by B. Dack That the minutes of the Board of Variance meeting held on May 20, 1997 be adopted. C. OTHER COMPETENT BUSINESS 1. Letter from Lidstone, Young, Anderson Letter from Lidstone, Young, Anderson addressing S.11(c)(ii) of the Surrey Board of Variance By-law, 1980, No Seconded by B. Dack That the letter from Lidstone, Young, Anderson be received. 2. Appeal # E. MacLean advised that at the April 15, 1997 meeting, Appeal # Trites Road had been tabled to the May meeting and did not appear. 3. By-law No E. MacLean also advised that the copies of By-law No were not legible. 4. Board of Variance Documents M. Cooper requested that Art Rowe be removed from the appeal documents and that M. Cooper be noted as Chair and K. Kang be noted as Deputy Chair 5. Quickscribe M. Cooper queried if all members received the 3rd volume of Quickscribe. 6. Board of Variance Seminar E. MacLean referred to the letter from the General Manager, Legislative Services/City Clerk regarding the break down of expenses from the Board of Variance seminar. He advised that the Board should decide how $ is to be disposed and requested the Chair to talk to the General Manager, Legislative Services/City Clerk to find out the true net of the seminar.

9 It was Moved by E. MacLean Seconded by K. Kang That M. Cooper talk to the General Manager, Legislative Services/City Clerk to find out the true net of the seminar. D. NEXT MEETING The next meeting of the Board of Variance will be held on Tuesday, August 19, 1997 at 9:00 a.m. E. ADJOURNMENT The Board of Variance Meeting adjourned at 2:40 p.m.