Re: NOTICE OF PROPOSAL TO ISSUE A DEVELOPMENT VARIANCE PERMIT FILE: LU STRATA REQUEST and TO VARY "DELTA ZONING BYLAW NO.

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Re: NOTICE OF PROPOSAL TO ISSUE A DEVELOPMENT VARIANCE PERMIT FILE: LU STRATA REQUEST and TO VARY "DELTA ZONING BYLAW NO."

Hugh Lee
5 years ago
Views:

1 Mayor Council From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Ron Brown Wednesday, March 07, :25 PM Mayor & Council Development Variance Permit (File: LU006408) Duplex-Konkin March 7, 2012.doc; IMG_0300.JPG; IMG_0299.JPG; IMG_0296.JPG ~ C, Dear Mayor-Council 1::0 o I have been in contact with Barry Konkin of the planning department and he has asked me to submit a letter to you. 'T' have spoken to him about my concerns with an application for a Variance Permit. He also has some concerns. The hearing will be conducted on March (Monday) by the Mayor-Council. I will send the letter attached in this as well as some pictures in jpeg. These pictures will be explained in the letter to you. Please give each of the Mayor-Council members a copy of the letter as well as pass the pictures on. Yours truly Ron Brown 6087 Crescent Drive Delta, BC 1

2 1 March 7, Re: NOTICE OF PROPOSAL TO ISSUE A DEVELOPMENT VARIANCE PERMIT FILE: LU STRATA REQUEST and TO VARY "DELTA ZONING BYLAW NO. 2750, 1977" MAYOR-COUNCIL TO MEET RE: VARIANCE PERMIT- MARCH 12, 2012 LOCATION: 6080 AND 6082 CRESCENT DRIVE, DELTA, BC Dear Mayor-Council I'm writing to you because Mr. Barry Konkin of the Planning Department thought I should forward my concerns to you relating to this application for a Variance permit and subsequent strata request. I've talked to him by phone and have corresponded via . First, I'd like to say that my family and I do not oppose their application request to become strata. We truly believe this would bring them pride of ownership and a sense of belonging. However, I oppose their requests for an exclusion from the parking bylaws for a Dwelling Duplex and in perpetuity if the request is granted. My Background: I'm 64 years old, currently retired from the Vancouver Police Department with over 30 years of service and have been living across from the applicant's duplex since I knew the original owner of the duplex and also his son who lived there for several years. I also knew the many renters in this duplex and many of them were exemplary. I've also met many of the pioneers past and present and have enjoyed my stay in Ladner. My Concerns with this varying request: In the Notice of Proposal there are 7 varying requests that have been presented by Barry Konkin of the planning department and on behalf of the applicants at 6060/6082 Crescent Drive. I'm responding to number 6 and 7 ofthe variance request. 6) A request that the off-street parking for 6082 Crescent Drive be reduced from two spaces to one on the driveway only and none in the carport. 7) A Request that 6080 Crescent Drive have the required two off-road parking spaces be on the driveway only and none in the carport. Note: Both 6080/6082 Crescent Drive have requested that the carports be excluded from being considered a parking space and recognized by Mayor-Council in perpetuity via this varying request. The request for exclusion in perpetuity is being made by the applicants because they have made storage areas in the carports of both duplexes. They have told Mr. Konkin they are unable to park their vehicles in the carports and want the carports excluded forever as an official parking spot.. Mr.Konkin said that he has submitted these requests because the applicants of the duplex have asked him to do so. Mr. Konkin also said that he has concerns with this request as I do.

3 2 Also, it would appear they have requested under section 5.2 to have the required works and service requirements waved. Does this mean that the next owners will have to complete this work? ************************************************************************************* I strongly disagree with their requests of an exclusion from the current parking bylaws associated with a Dwelling Duplex. The bylaw requires that one vehicle to be parked in the front yard (off-road) and the other vehicle is to be parked in an enclosed area (Carport/Garage). A further off-road space must be provided for a border. In this neighbourhood parking spaces are often at a premium. In the past it has been difficult to park my own vehicles on the road in front of my residence if I so required. The applicants request to be excluded from the minimal standards ofthe bylaws is extremely unreasonable and I'll explain my reasons. Since 1975 many people have come and gone from this duplex. All had at least one car per side. These vehicles consisted of medium and large sized vehicles. All of them parked their vehicles in the carports situated at 6080/6082 Crescent Drive and had no difficulty doing so. One nice elderly couple were very overweight and had a large Pontiac Parisienne and even they had no difficulty parking in the carport and entering their side of the duplex. Mr. Konkin has told me the applicants have tried but can't park their vehicles in the carports or at least this is what they have stated to him. This is not correct and it is not being truthful. They do not park in their respective carports because they have never attempted to do $0. It is that simple. Ever since day one both owners of the duplex have filled their respective carports with refuse consisting of boxes, bottles, quad vehicles, etc. and they have never had the room to park because of the clutter. They then enclosed the carports on both sides with doors so they could have a storage area and thus the carports are now blocked for vehicle use. They also have constructed a barrier by the front doors making the space into the carports smaller. Do they need a permit for such a structure? The request for a reduction in off-road parking space is not a valid one. One of my concerns is the number of vehicles associated to the duplex that is essentially built on an undersized lot Crescent Drive is requesting that they be required to only have one off-road parking space and no requirement to have a carport. This address has two small cars and one large truck associated to this address and possibly one more in the future. Two of these vehicles could easily fit inside the carport if it hadn't been covered up. Presently they park two vehicles on the street and one in the driveway Crescent Drive has one small car, one large truck and possibly one more vehicle in the future. They are also asking to be exempted from having a required enclosed carport. Their small car could easily fit in the carport. They usually park their vehicles in the driveway but on occasion they park their truck on the grass. It is my fear that both sides are attempting to do an end run and use Mr. Konkin as their messenger. This is not right to do so. Honesty seems to have been forgotten but I'll leave Council to determine that one.

4 3 Note: If the applicants want their carports to be closed in perpetuity why don't they submit a proposal such as widening their driveways to enable them to park their vehicles and meet some of the bylaw regulations? I have recently suggested this to them but they have looked at me with blank stares. To my knowledge they have not submitted a proposal or even discussed such with the neighbours. Next door to the applicant's duplex is another duplex situated at the corner of 61" and Crescent Drive. Both sides have wonderful elderly people in their 80's living in each side and they have carports. I have included some jpeg pictures for you. The pictures show how the elderly people are able to park in their carports. Much larger sized cars than the applicants currently have. Their carports are the same size as the applicant's carports. They drive med to large size vehicles. Each day they park in their carports with no difficulty at all. Each carport is free of clutter to allow such parking. Also, these elderly people built themselves a large shed at the rear of their premise. Each side has a door to enter the shed and they have split the storage inside the shed for their own use. Obviously age does have its merits such as ingenuity. ******Perhaps the applicants could do the same and this could alleviate the need to close in their carports. I have voiced my concern to Mr. Konkin that having the bylaws changed for them could open up a can of worms. It would be highly unfair to have one set of regulations for them and another set for the rest of us and needlessly so. Also, there is every chance the carports will in time be turned into living space. I'm sure others will attempt this if this is allowed. Most of us live in mid 70's style of homes and some are long time residence. We have always conformed to the regulations such as for garages/carports and driveways. Most of us have doubled our driveways so that we can alleviate the street of any unnecessary parking. Hopefully, the applicants can do the same. All I ask is that we bring the applicants duplex up to code and not be regressive by minimizing the rules and bylaws that we enjoy in this municipality. I respectfully leave this letter and contents for your consideration. Yours truly, Ron Brown 6087 Crescent Drive Delta,BC

Nov. 29, 2007 PL Ontario Municipal Board Commission des affaires municipales de l Ontario. Judith Sellens and Claire Sellens

Nov. 29, 2007 PL Ontario Municipal Board Commission des affaires municipales de l Ontario. Judith Sellens and Claire Sellens ISSUE DATE: Nov. 29, 2007 PL060515 Ontario Municipal Board Commission des affaires municipales de l Ontario Judith & Claire Sellens have appealed to the Ontario Municipal under subsection 42(6) of the