40500-03
CITY OF BURNABY
BOARD OF VARIANCE
M I N U T E S
A Hearing of the Board of
Variance was held in the Council Chamber, City Hall, 4949 Canada Way, Burnaby,
B.C., on Thursday, 2015 March 05 at 1:00 p.m.
PRESENT: Ms. C. Richter
Mr. B. Pound
Mr. S.
Nemeth
Mr. G. Clark
Mr. B. Bharaj
STAFF: Ms. M. Malysz, Planning Department
Representative
Mr. S. Cleave, Deputy City Clerk
Ms. K. O’Connell,
Deputy City Clerk
1. CALL TO ORDER
The Secretary called the Hearing
to order at 1:08 p.m.
2. MINUTES
MOVED BY MR. S. NEMETH:
SECONDED BY MR. B. POUND:
"THAT the minutes of the
Hearing of the Burnaby Board of Variance held on 2015 February 05 be adopted as
circulated."
CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY
The following
persons filed application forms requesting that they be permitted to appear
before the Board of Variance for the purpose of appealing for the relaxation of
specific requirements as defined in the Burnaby Zoning Bylaw 1965, Bylaw No.
4742:
|
|
|
|
|
(a)
|
APPEAL NUMBER:
|
B.V. 6147
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
APPELLANT:
|
Joe Wong
|
|
|
|
|
REGISTERED
OWNER OF PROPERTY:
|
Tseng-an Chen and Chao Guo
|
|
|
|
|
CIVIC
ADDRESS OF PROPERTY:
|
8276
Burnlake Drive
|
|
|
|
|
LEGAL
DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY:
|
Lot 94; District Lot 40; Plan
44446
|
|
|
|
|
APPEAL:
|
An appeal for the relaxation of
Sections 101.7(b), 101.9(1) and 101.10 of the Burnaby Zoning Bylaw which, if
permitted, will allow for an addition to 8276 Burnlake Drive. The following
variances are being requested:
a) depth of the principal
building is 92.3 feet where a maximum depth of 60.0 feet is permitted;
b) north side yard setback is
5.9 feet to the foundation where a minimum side yard setback of 7.9 feet is
required;
c) sum of the side yard
setbacks is 15.7 feet where a minimum sum of 18.0 feet is required; and
d) rear yard setback is 17.4
feet to the foundation where a minimum rear yard setback of 29.5 feet is
required.(Zone-R1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A previous
Board of Variance (B.V.6025 2012 December 6) allowed b) and c), but denied
variances a) and d).
APPELLANT'S SUBMISSION:
Joe Wong submitted an application for
relaxation of the Burnaby Zoning Bylaw to allow for construction of an addition
to his client’s home.
Mr. Wong and Mr. Tseng-an Chen, homeowner, appeared before
members of the Board of Variance at the Hearing.
BURNABY
PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENTS COMMENT:
An appeal for the relaxation of Sections 101.7(b), 101.9(1) and 101.10
of the Burnaby Zoning Bylaw which, if permitted, will allow for an addition to
8276 Burnlake Drive. The following variances are requested:
a) a
principal building depth of 92.3 feet where a maximum depth of 60.0 feet is
permitted;
b) a
side yard setback from the north property line of 5.9 feet to the foundation
where a minimum side yard setback of 7.9 feet is required;
c) a
sum of side yard setbacks of 15.7 feet where a minimum sum of 18.0 feet is
required;
d) a
rear yard setback of 17.4 feet to the foundation where a minimum rear yard
setback of 29.5 feet is required.
This property was the subject of an appeal before the Board
on 2003 September 04 (BV#5157) and on 2012 December 06 (BV #6025).
In the 2003 September 04 appeal, a variance was sought to
allow for the construction, to the rear of the existing single family dwelling,
of a detached garage with a gross floor area of 1,048.8 sq. ft., where a
maximum of 602.8 sq. ft. is permitted. While this Department did not support
this request, the Board granted the appeal.
In the 2012 December 06 appeal, four variances were sought
to allow for the construction of an addition to the existing single family
dwelling.
· The
first a) appeal was to allow a principal building depth of 92.3 ft., where a
maximum building depth of 60 ft. is permitted.
·
The second b) appeal was to allow a
side yard setback from the north property line of 5.9 ft., where a minimum side
yard setback of 7.9 ft. is required.
·
The third c) appeal was to allow a sum
of side yard setbacks of 15.7 ft., where a minimum sum of side yard setbacks of
18.0 ft. is required.
·
The fourth d) appeal was to allow a
rear yard setback of 17.4 ft., where a minimum rear yard setback of 29.5 ft. is
required.
While this Department objected to all of the requests, the
Board denied the first a) appeal (building depth) and fourth d) appeal (rear yard setback) and allowed the second b)
appeal (side yard setback) and third c) appeal (sum
of side yard setbacks).
This Department’s comments on the 2012 December 06 appeal,
which also references the 2003 September 04 appeal, are included as Item 1 in
the attached Supplementary materials.
Section 14 of Burnaby Bylaw No. 5843 (Board of Variance
Bylaw, 1971) states:
“The Board shall not, within one (1) year of the date of
the decision of the Board, re-hear an appeal previously denied covering the
identical grounds or principals upon which the Board has rendered a decision.”
The applicant requests the Board re-hear the appeal
presented at the 2012 December 06 meeting, which occurred approximately two (2)
years and three (3) months ago.
Since this
proposal is identical to the 2012 December 06 appeal, this Department’s
comments remain unchanged.
In summary, it
is difficult to find a hardship in this case. All four relaxations are the
result of a design decision to connect the principal building to the accessory
building, and are driven by convenience rather than necessity.
In view
of the above, this Department cannot support the granting of either appeal.
ADJACENT OWNER'S COMMENTS:
An undated
petition letter was received from homeowners and occupants of 8265, 8275, 8282,
8285 and 8288 Burnlake Drive. The petition read as follows:
“The following
list of people below support the attachment between two buildings of 8276
Burnlake Dr.”
An email dated
February 27, 2015, was received from Monika and Brian Bonney, 8306 Government
Road, in support of this appeal.
An email dated
February 28, 2015 was received from Mario Giardini, 8270 Burnlake Drive, in
opposition to the appeal.
No further
correspondence was received regarding this appeal.
DECISION:
MOVED BY MR. B. BHARAJ:
SECONDED BY MR. S. NEMETH:
“THAT based on the plans submitted part a) of this appeal be
ALLOWED.”
FOR:
MR. B. BHARAJ
MR.
B. POUND
MR.
G. CLARKE
OPPOSED:
MR. S. NEMETH
MS.
C. RICHTER
CARRIED
MOVED BY MR. B. BHARAJ:
SECONDED BY MR. S. NEMETH:
“THAT based on the plans submitted part b) of this appeal be
ALLOWED.”
FOR:
MR. B. BHARAJ
MR.
B. POUND
MR.
G. CLARKE
MS.
C. RICHTER
OPPOSED:
MR. S. NEMETH
CARRIED
MOVED BY MR. B. BHARAJ:
SECONDED BY MR. S. NEMETH:
“THAT based on the plans submitted part c) of this appeal be
ALLOWED.”
FOR:
MR. B. BHARAJ
MR.
B.POUND
MR.
G. CLARKE
MS.
C. RICHTER
OPPOSED:
MR. S. NEMETH
CARRIED
MOVED BY MR. B. BHARAJ:
SECONDED BY MR. S. NEMETH:
“THAT based on the plans submitted part d) of this appeal be
ALLOWED.”
FOR:
MR. B. BHARAJ
MR.
B.POUND
MR.
G. CLARKE
OPPOSED:
MR. S. NEMETH
MS.
C. RICHTER
CARRIED
|
(b)
|
APPEAL NUMBER:
|
B.V. 6148
|
|
|
APPELLANT:
|
Steven Chen
|
|
|
|
|
REGISTERED OWNER OF
PROPERTY:
|
Yu Zhao
|
|
|
|
|
CIVIC ADDRESS OF PROPERTY:
|
5890 Empress Avenue
|
|
|
|
|
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF
PROPERTY:
|
Lot 190; District Lot 92; Plan 25859
|
|
|
|
|
APPEAL:
|
An appeal for the relaxation of
Sections 102.7(a) and 102.10 of the Burnaby Zoning Bylaw which, if permitted,
will allow for construction of a new single family dwelling at 5890 Empress
Avenue. The following variances are being requested:
a) depth of the principal
building will be 42.0 feet where a maximum depth of 40.0 feet is permitted;
and
b) rear yard setback will be
13.40 feet to the foundation where a minimum rear yard setback of 29.5 feet
is required. (Zone R-2)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
APPELLANT'S SUBMISSION:
Steven Chen submitted
an application for the relaxation of the Burnaby Zoning Bylaw to allow for
construction of a new single family dwelling.
No one appeared
to represent the applicant before members of the Board of Variance at the
Hearing.
BURNABY
PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENTS COMMENT:
An appeal for the relaxation of Sections 102.7(a) and 102.10 of the
Burnaby Zoning Bylaw which, if permitted, will allow for construction of a new
single family dwelling at 5890 Empress Avenue. The following variances are
requested:
a)
a principal building depth of 42.0 feet where a maximum depth of
40.0 feet is permitted; and
b)
a rear yard setback of 13.4 feet to the foundation where a
minimum rear yard setback of 29.5 feet is required.
The subject site, which is zoned R2 Residential District,
is located in the Kingsway Beresford neighbourhood, in which the age and
condition of single dwellings vary. This interior lot, which is approximately
80.0 ft. deep and 124.2 ft. wide, fronts Empress Avenue to the west. Abutting
the subject site to the north, east and across the lane to the south are
single family dwellings. Vehicular access is provided
from the lane. The site observes a substantial downward slope of
approximately 21.6 ft. from the southeast (rear) corner to the northwest
(front) corner. The subject lot is unusual in that it is oriented laterally to
its only road frontage along the western property line.
The subject site is proposed to be redeveloped with a new
single family dwelling including an accessory detached garage, which is the subject of two appeals. The appeals are co-related.
The first a)
appeal is for the construction of a new single family
dwelling, observing a principal building depth of 42.0 ft. where a maximum building depth of 40.0 ft. is
permitted based on 50% of the lot depth.
The Bylaw’s
intent in limiting building depth is to prevent the visual intrusion and sense
of confinement that a long building wall can impose on neighbouring properties.
The second b) appeal is for the construction of a new
single family dwelling observing a rear yard setback of 13.4 ft., with a further projection of roof eaves of up to 3.0 ft.,
where a minimum rear yard setback of 29.5
ft. is required.
The intent of the Bylaw is to mitigate the massing impacts
of new buildings and structures on neighbouring properties and to ensure
sufficient outdoor living area in the rear yard is provided.
Both variances are related to site orientation. Under Section 3 of the Zoning Bylaw, the front lot line of
the property is the lot line that abuts Empress
Avenue, resulting in a lot depth that is measured in the shallower west-east
direction. City records indicate that the
existing building on the subject site was constructed with all necessary
approvals consistent with this orientation. However,
the actual placement of the existing dwelling, which is at an angle to the
front property line, differs slightly from these records. The existing dwelling
observes an approximately 25.0 ft. setback from the west front lot line to the
southwest corner; an approximately 12.0 ft. setback from the east rear lot line
to the northeast corner; and a building depth of approximately 43.0 ft., as
projected on the lot depth line.
The proposed dwelling, sited parallel to the front property
line, would observe a west front yard setback of 24.6 ft., which is the minimum
required front yard setback; an east rear lot setback of 13.4 ft., and a
building depth of 42 ft.
With respect to the first a) appeal, although the allowable
building depth is exceeded by 2.0 ft., given
the orientation of the subject dwelling, the proposed additions would not
result in a long wall effect as viewed from
the neighbouring property to the north and south. In addition, the proposed
building depth would be approximately 1.0 ft. less than the existing depth. The generous north side yard of approximately 40.12 ft.
would further mitigate any impacts on the neighbouring property to the north.
With respect to the neighbouring property across the lane to the south,
although the proposed side yard setback is only 5.08 ft., as measured to the
attached garage on the south side of the dwelling, the main body of the
dwelling would be set back an additional 22.0 ft. This generous setback and the
spatial separation provided by the lane would help alleviate any impacts on the
neighbouring property to the south.
With respect to the second b) appeal, although the required
rear yard is reduced by 16.1 ft., the proposed
setback is 1.0 ft. less than the existing rear yard setback. Also, two existing
large trees would be maintained within the rear yard, which would partly screen
the proposed dwelling. Further, the
neighbouring property to the east observes higher grades than the subject
property and is generally orientated towards Walker Avenue to the northeast. Therefore, a relatively low
impact would be expected with respect to the neighbouring property to the east.
With respect to outdoor living area, although green space
would be reduced within the rear yard, plenty of green area would be provided
in the generous north side yard.
In addition, this Department will pursue a text amendment
to the Zoning Bylaw to address the hardship encountered on lots, such as the
subject site, where the only abutting street is parallel to the longest lot
line. This should help resolve concerns about the develop ability of the lot
over the long term.
In summary, because the shallow depth of the subject lot
represents a hardship and limits design options, and considering this
proposal’s limited impact on neighbouring properties, this Department does not
object to the granting of the first a) and second b) variances.
ADJACENT OWNER'S COMMENTS:
No correspondence
was received regarding this variance.
DECISION:
MOVED BY MR. S. NEMETH:
SECONDED BY MR. B. POUND:
“THAT based on the plans submitted part a) of this appeal be
ALLOWED.”
CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY
MOVED BY MR. S. NEMETH:
SECONDED BY MR. B. POUND:
“THAT based on the plans submitted part b) of this appeal be
ALLOWED.”
CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY
|
(c)
|
APPEAL
NUMBER:
|
B.V. 6149
|
|
APPELLANT:
|
Krishan Anand
|
|
|
|
|
REGISTERED OWNER OF PROPERTY:
|
Krishan and Raj Anand
|
|
|
|
|
CIVIC ADDRESS OF PROPERTY:
|
7495
Whelen Court
|
|
|
|
|
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY:
|
Lot 2; District Lot 86; Plan 24141
|
|
|
|
|
APPEAL:
|
An appeal for the relaxation of
Sections 101.6(1)(b) and 101.8 of the Burnaby Zoning Bylaw which, if
permitted, will allow for the construction of a new single family dwelling at
7495 Whelen Court. The following variances are being requested:
a) principal building height
will be 31.98 feet measured from the rear average elevation and 23.82*
feet measured from the front average elevation where a maximum building
height of 24.3 feet is permitted; and
b) front yard setback will be
17.17 feet to the post where a minimum front yard setback of 29.5 feet is
required based on minimum front yard. The roof will project 3.0 feet beyond
the post. (Zone R-1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
*It should be
noted the front average elevation was corrected to read 23.82 feet instead of the
originally noted 24.48 feet. The revised elevation complies with the bylaw
requirement.
APPELLANT'S SUBMISSION:
Krishan Anand submitted
an application for relaxation of the Burnaby Zoning Bylaw to allow for construction
of a new home.
Mr. Anand appeared
before members of the Board of Variance at the Hearing.
BURNABY
PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENTS COMMENT:
An appeal for the relaxation of Sections 101.6(1)(b) and 101.8 of
the Burnaby Zoning Bylaw which, if permitted, will allow for the construction
of a new single family dwelling at 7495 Whelen Court. The following variances
are requested:
a) a
principal building height of 31.98 feet measured from the rear average
elevation and 24.48 feet measured from the front average elevation where a
maximum building height of 24.3 feet is permitted; and
b) a front yard setback of 17.17 feet to the porch post where a minimum
front yard setback of 29.5 feet is required. The proposed roof projects 3.0
feet beyond the post.
The subject site, zoned R1 Residential District, is located in a
stable single-family neighbourhood in the Morley-Buckingham area. This
irregular interior lot, approximately 91.7 ft. wide and 121.3 ft. deep along
the southwest property line, fronts Whelen Court to the southeast. The front
lot line reflects the irregular alignment of Whelen Court, which jogs to the
east in front of the subject property. Abutting the site to the
southwest and the northeast are single family dwellings. A wooded ravine within
the Haszard Trail and Conservation Area borders the subject site to the
northwest. A 25.5 ft. wide sanitary right of way is located along the northwest
property line. Vehicular access to the property is from Whelen
Court; there is no lane access. The site slopes
downward approximately 24.4 ft. towards the north.
A new single-family dwelling with attached garage is proposed on the
subject site, for which two variances are requested.
The first appeal a) proposes: 1) a building height of 31.98 ft.,
measured from the rear average elevation, where a maximum height of 24.3 ft. is
permitted for flat roofs; and 2) a building height of 24.48 ft., measured from
the front average elevation, where a maximum height of 24.3 ft. is permitted
for flat roofs.
The intent of the Bylaw is to mitigate the massing of new buildings
or structures and their impacts on neighbouring properties.
In reference to part 1) of the appeal, the height calculation is
based on the proposed natural grade at the rear elevation. A substantial grade
difference contributes to the excess height. The proposed dwelling would extend
further to the northwest by approximately 12 ft. as compared to the existing
dwelling. Accordingly, the rear of the proposed dwelling, where the grades are
lower, is where the excess height would occur. The proposed height encroachment
of 7.68 ft. would occur over the entire upper floor, from approximately 1 ft.
above the window sill level, as viewed from the rear property line. This area
of encroachment would be set back from the rear outermost building face, which
is at the north corner of the dwelling, by approximately 9.5 ft. The remaining
approximately 2/3 of the upper floor would be set back further by approximately
22 ft.
Although the height encroachment is substantial in this case, the
foliage of the Haszard Trail and Conservation Area, located to the
immediate northwest of the site, in combination with the generous rear setback would mitigate any massing impacts on the neighbouring residences
further to the northwest.
With respect to the northeast (side) elevation, the height
encroachment would include a triangular area in the middle portion of the upper
floor, above the bottom sill of a high window. This encroachment would occur
approximately 8 ft. from the northeast property line, as measured to the
building face. The height encroachment would also occur at the rear portion of
the upper floor, from the top of the upper deck railing. This portion of the
proposed northeast elevation is set back further 9.5 ft. from the outermost
face of the northeast elevation, which is a mitigating factor.
With respect to the southwest (side) elevation, the height
encroachment would be essentially limited to the small roof area at the front
portion of the upper floor, starting approximately at the fascia board level.
The encroachment would occur approximately 10.4 ft. from the southwest property
line, as measured to the building face. The rear portion of the upper floor
would be set back a further 47.25 ft. from the outermost face of the southwest
elevation. Although encroachment in this case would be larger, up to
approximately 3 ft. below fascia board level, the generous setback would
mitigate any potential visual impacts.
In summary, considering the limited scale and distant siting of the
encroachment areas at the rear and side elevations, few impacts to neighbouring
properties are expected.
With respect to part 2) of the appeal, the proposed dwelling would
observe a height of 24.48 ft. when viewed from the Whelen Court front property
line, which is 0.18 ft. more than the maximum height of
24.3 ft. allowed by the Zoning Bylaw. This minor height encroachment would be
limited to the small area of the highest peak of the roof, which would occur
approximately 23.5 ft. from the outermost face of the front elevation.
In summary, given the site’s topographical constraints, and the
proposal’s limited impacts on neighbouring properties
and the existing streetscape, this Department does not object to the granting
of the first a) variance.
The second b) appeal is for a front yard
setback of 17.17 ft., measured to the front porch posts of the proposed single
family dwelling, with a further projection for roof eaves of 3.0 ft., where
a minimum front yard setback of 29.5 ft. from the Whelen Court property line is
required.
The intent of the Bylaw in requiring a minimum front yard setback is
to mitigate the massing of new buildings or structures and their impacts on
neighbouring properties and the existing street frontage.
This variance request is related to the irregular alignment of the
front lot line of the subject site. As the front lot line nears the east corner
of the property, it turns 90 degrees inward and forms a notch that extends
approximately 12.53 ft. towards the rear of the property. The front yard
setback is measured from the point of the notch, which is approximately12.53
ft. inward of the remainder of the front lot line. If measured from the more
uniform portions of the front lot line, which more closely conform to those of
neighbouring properties, the proposed dwelling would observe a front yard
setback of 29.7 ft., which is slightly more than the minimum required.
The irregular alignment of the front property line presents a
hardship with respect to the front yard setback requirement. With the exception
of the irregular indentation, the proposal meets front yard setback
requirements.
In view of the above this Department does not object to the granting
of this second b) variance.
ADJACENT OWNER'S COMMENTS:
Judith
Robertson, 7485 Whelen Court, appeared before members of the Board opposing the
appeal. Ms. Robertson provided a power point presentation, a copy of which is
on file in the Office of the City Clerk.
No further
comments were received regarding this appeal.
DECISION:
MOVED BY MR. B. BHARAJ:
SECONDED BY MR. S. NEMETH:
“THAT based on the plans submitted part a) of this appeal be
ALLOWED.”
FOR:
MR. B. BHARAJ
MR.
B.POUND
MR.
G. CLARKE
MS.
C. RICHTER
OPPOSED:
MR. S. NEMETH
CARRIED
MOVED BY MR. B. BHARAJ:
SECONDED BY MR. B. POUND:
“THAT based on the plans submitted part b) of this appeal be
ALLOWED.”
CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY
|
(d)
|
APPEAL NUMBER:
|
B.V. 6144
|
|
|
APPELLANT:
|
Vikram Tiku
|
|
|
|
|
REGISTERED OWNER OF PROPERTY:
|
Zhuting Wu
|
|
|
|
|
CIVIC ADDRESS OF PROPERTY:
|
5824
Burns Place
|
|
|
|
|
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF
PROPERTY:
|
Lot 6; District Lot 93; Plan 21802
|
|
|
|
|
APPEAL:
|
An appeal
for the relaxation of Section 104.9 of the Burnaby Zoning Bylaw which, if
permitted, will allow for the construction of a new single family dwelling at
5824 Burns Place. The front yard setback will be 36.08 feet to the
foundation where a minimum front yard setback of 41.86 feet is required based
on front yard averaging. (Zone R-4)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
APPELLANT'S
SUBMISSION:
Vikram Tiku
submitted an application for relaxation of the Burnaby Zoning Bylaw to allow
for construction of a new home.
Mr. Tiku appeared
before members of the Board of Variance at the Hearing.
BURNABY
PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENTS COMMENT:
An appeal for the relaxation of Section 104.9 of the Burnaby Zoning
Bylaw which, if permitted, will allow for the construction of a new single
family dwelling at 5824 Burns Place. The proposed front yard setback is 36.08
feet to the foundation where a minimum front yard setback of 41.86 feet is
required based on front yard averaging.
The subject site, which is zoned R4 Residential District, is located
in the Windsor neighbourhood, in which the age and condition of single and
two-family dwellings vary. This corner lot, approximately 59.3 ft. wide and
115.9 ft. deep, fronts onto Kisbey Avenue to the west. Abutting the subject
site to the east, south and across Burns Place to the north are single family
dwellings. Vehicular access to the subject site is proposed to be relocated
from Burns Place to Kisbey Avenue; there is no lane access. The site observes a
downward slope of approximately 5.3 ft. to the north.
The subject site is proposed to be redeveloped with a new single
family dwelling including an accessory detached garage, which is the
subject of this appeal.
The appeal requests a front yard setback of
36.08 ft., measured to the foundation of the proposed single family dwelling,
with a further projection for cornices of 0.5 ft., where front
yard averaging requires a minimum setback of 41.86 ft.
In 1991, Council responded to public concerns regarding the bulk and
massing of newer and larger homes that were being built in existing
neighbourhoods. Several text amendments to the Zoning Bylaw were adopted to
address these concerns, including a requirement to set new construction back
from the front property line based on an average of the two dwellings on either
side of the subject site. The intent was to help to ease new construction into
existing street frontages with minimal impact.
In this case, the front yard averaging calculations are based on the
front yard setback of the existing dwelling at 6436 Kisbey Avenue immediately
south of the subject site, which is 41.86 ft. The subject block consists of
only three lots; the third lot fronts Bryant Street and therefore is not
included in front yard averaging calculations.
The proposed front yard setback is measured to the foundation of the
northern portion of the front elevation. The southern portion of the front
elevation is proposed to be set back further by 3.0 ft. The proposed siting
would place the subject dwelling 5.78 ft. in front of the neighbouring dwelling
to the south, or 2.78 ft. if the southwest corner of the subject dwelling is
considered. In addition, the upper floor at the southwest corner of the
dwelling is proposed to be set back a further 6.33 ft. With respect to the
south side, the subject dwelling would observe a south side yard setback of 5.0
ft. which is just over the required minimum width (4.9 ft.). However, the upper
floor at the southwest corner is proposed to be set back an additional 9.18 ft.
Considering these upper floor setbacks in addition to a relatively minor
reduction in the proposed front yard depth, little massing impact is expected
on the neighbouring property to the south.
In addition, the siting of the proposed dwelling would be
approximately 19 ft. further away from the front property line in comparison to
the siting of the existing dwelling on the subject site. The existing dwelling
observes a front yard setback of 17 ft. which was the subject of a successful
appeal to the Board of Variance in 1978. The Board permitted the 17 ft. front
yard setback where a front yard setback of 25 ft. was required at that time. In
view of the above, the existing massing relationship between the proposed
dwelling and the adjacent properties, and particularly to the south, would be
substantially improved.
Further, it is noted that the siting of the proposed dwelling would
provide for a rear yard setback of approximately 29.83 ft., where a minimum
rear yard setback of 29.5 ft. is required. As such, there is little room for
modifying this proposal.
In summary, since this request would improve the existing conditions
in relation to the neighbouring property to the south and the existing
streetscape in general, this Department supports the granting of this variance.
ADJACENT
OWNER'S COMMENTS:
No correspondence was received regarding this appeal.
DECISION:
MOVED BY MR. B. POUND:
SECONDED BY MR. S. NEMETH:
“THAT based on the plans submitted this appeal be ALLOWED.”
CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY
5. NEW BUSINESS
No items of new business were brought
forward at this time.
A D J O U R N M E
N T
MOVED BY MR. B. POUND:
SECONDED BY MR. S. NEMETH:
"THAT this Hearing do now adjourn."
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
The Hearing adjourned at 1:58 p.m.
Ms.
C. Richter
____________________________
Mr.
B. Bharaj
____________________________
Mr.
G. Clark
Mr.
S. Nemeth
Mr.
B. Pound
S. Cleave
Deputy City Clerk