|
APPELLANT’S SUBMISSION:
Mr. Saroya, home owner, submitted an application to
allow for the construction
of a new single family dwelling with a secondary suite and detached garage at
6830 Boundary Road.
Mr. Saroya, home owner
and Mr. Palad, designer, appeared before the members of the Board of
Variance.
BURNABY
PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT COMMENTS:
The subject site, which is zoned R10
Residential District, is located in the Suncrest neighbourhood, a mature R10
neighbourhood characterized by single family dwellings. The subject site is
one of two lots in a block which fronts onto a road parallel to Boundary
Road. This rectangular lot has a western frontage of 20.15 metres (66.11
feet) on Boundary Road and a northern side property line of 32.97 metres
(106.29 feet) facing a lane. Across the lane to the north is a commercial
Comprehensive Development (CD) site that fronts onto Imperial Avenue.
Immediately south of the subject site is a single family dwelling (6840
Boundary Road) which was constructed in 1959, and to the east the rear yard
of single a family dwelling that fronts onto Dubois Street.
The site is relatively flat, sloping
upwards approximately 0.60 metres (2.00 feet) in an east-west direction from
the rear property line to Boundary Road. A 3.35 metre (11.00 feet) wide
sanitary sewer easement parallels the eastern (rear) property line. The site
is 651.18 square metres (7,009.3 square feet), or 17.2% greater than the
minimum R10 lot size. Vehicular access to the subject site is proposed to be
from the lane at the north east corner of the property.
A new single family dwelling with a secondary
suite and a detached two car garage are proposed for the subject site, for
which the following variance is requested.
The appeal is to vary
Section 104.9 – “Front Yard” of the Zoning Bylaw requirement from 8.96 metres (29.41 feet), based on front yard averaging, to the proposed 7.59
metres (24.90 feet). This variance request
conflicts with the objective of front yard averaging and the intent of the
R10 Residential District to ensure uniform front yards.
In 1991,
Council responded to the public concerns with respect to the bulk and massing
of the newer and larger homes that were built in the established
neighbourhoods. Several text amendments to the Zoning Bylaw were made to
address these concerns, including the requirement of a larger front yard where
the average front yard depth of the two dwellings on either side of the
subject site exceeds the required front yard applicable to the zone. The
larger front yard requirement should be calculated through “front yard
averaging”. The intent of the amendment was to improve the consistency and
harmony of the new construction with the existing neighbourhood.
In addition, some
residents in older neighbourhoods requested more controls over the form and
character of new development. This site is located in one such area, which was rezoned to
the R10 District through an area rezoning process in 1996. Pertinent to this
appeal, the R10 District was designed to ensure that front yards were uniform
along a block face, with an absence of fences and driveways located in front
of the houses. These measures were to ensure a sense of openness in the
streetscape.
The subject variance is
measured from the Boundary Road property line to the foundation at the
southwestern corner of the new single family dwelling. In this case, the
front yard averaging calculation is based on the front yard setback of the
adjacent dwelling at 6840 Boundary Road. This is measured from the point
closest to the front property line, which is the 4.26 metres (14.00 feet) wide
facade that projects from the south west corner of the adjacent dwelling.
This projection is set 9.01 metres (29.57 feet) back from Boundary Road.
However, the largest section of the façade (approximately 8.53 metres (28.00
feet) wide), which is closest to the new dwelling, is set 1.04 metres (3.43
feet) farther back at 10.05 metres (33.00 feet) from Boundary Road.
Front yard averaging was
designed for cases such as this, to ease a new, larger dwelling into an
existing neighbourhood. The proposed dwelling (369.93 square metres/3,982
square feet) is the maximum size possible under the R10 District, while the
adjacent dwelling is approximately 241.54 square metres (2,600 square feet).
Placing the new dwelling
at the front yard averaged setback of 9.01 metres (29.57 feet) would align it
with the western “wing” of 6840 Boundary Road and place it 1.04 metres (3.43
feet) in front of the indented façade which is nearest to it. The result
would be compatible with the siting of the adjacent dwelling and the neighbourhood
context. If the new dwelling had the minimum front yard setback (7.58
metres/24.90 feet), this would place it 2.46 metres (8.10 feet) in front of
the adjacent dwelling. This could create overshadowing and the blocking of
views.
Permitting the minimum
front yard setback would also frustrate the intent of the R10 zoning district
to maintain an open, and unified streetscape. A review of the surrounding
streets shows there are many older homes with established block frontages
along Dubois Street and Boundary Road with front yard setbacks ranging from
9.14 metres (30.00 feet) to 12.19 metres (40.00 feet). The new dwelling with
a reduced front yard setback would be out of character with neighbouring
properties and perhaps set an undesirable precedent for new development.
The ability to design a
new house on a large, regular, flat site in conformance with the Bylaw is
feasible. The site does have a 3.35 metre (11.00 feet) wide easement at
the rear (east) property line. However, the site is 93.18 square metres
(1,033 square feet) larger than the minimum required R10 District lot size,
which compensates for the area covered by the easement (67.44 square
metres/726 square feet). The current design could comply with the required
front yard averaging requirement with a few minor modifications.
For example, the site
plan shows a distance of 5.27 metres (17.31 feet) between the rear of the
house and the two car garage where the Bylaw only requires 4.49 metres (14.76
feet). If the house was moved eastwards 0.78 metres (2.55 feet), the point-to
point measurement from the northwest corner of the garage to the southeast
corner of the kitchen wall would maintain the required distance between
buildings. In addition, the garage is offset by 0.38 metres (1.25 feet) from
the sewer easement across the rear of the property. The garage, and therefore
the dwelling, could be moved 0.30 metres (1.0 foot) eastwards closer to the
easement. Other siting possibilities include shifting the garage northwards
closer to the lane, which would move it away from the root zone of the
southernmost fir tree and free up a large lawn area in the southern portion
of the back yard.
In addition, the
dwelling could be modified: the 160.53 square metres (1,728 square feet) main
floor plan which consists of a living room, family room, dining area, kitchen
and two bedrooms could be “tightened up” to absorb a little more than a metre
of building depth if necessary. Partial interior modifications could be
combined with siting adjustments to leave the plans largely as-is. For
example, the rear wall of the kitchen (main floor) and suite (cellar) could
be pulled back 0.34 metres (1.12 feet) or more, which would allow the
dwelling to be shifted the same distance eastwards into the rear yard. The
loss of gross floor area would be minimal, as only the kitchen and cellar
would be affected.
In conclusion, both
front yard averaging and the intent of the R10 District prescribe consistent
and open front yards. The request for a variance is the result of design
choices, and every effort should be made to work within the framework of the
Bylaw.
ADJACENT OWNER’S COMMENTS:
Correspondence was received from the
homeowner of 6910 Boundary Road expressing concerns regarding the lack of
street parking in the 6800 block of Boundary Road. The writer requested
assurances that the dwelling at 6830 Boundary Road provide sufficient parking
for all residents and tenants.
No further correspondence was
received regarding this appeal.
|