|
|
|
CITY OF
BURNABY
|
|
|
|
 Board of
Variance
|
|
|
|
NOTICE
OF OPEN MEETING
|
|
|
|
M I N U
T E S
|
|
|
|
A Hearing of the Board of Variance
was held in the City Hall Cafeteria, Lower Level , 4949 Canada Way, Burnaby,
B.C., on Thursday, 2016 September 08 at 6:00 p.m.
|
|
PRESENT:
|
Ms.
Charlene Richter, Chair
Mr.
Guyle Clark, Citizen Representative
Mr.
Rana Dhatt, Citizen Representative
Mr.
Stephen Nemeth, Citizen Representative
Mr.
Brian Pound, Citizen Representative
|
|
STAFF:
|
Ms.
Margaret Malysz, Planning Department Representative
Ms.
Eva Prior, Administrative Officer
|
|
The Chair for the Board of Variance
called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
|
|
MOVED BY mr. pound
SECONDED BY mr. clark
|
|
|
|
THAT the minutes of the Burnaby
Board of Variance Hearing held on 2016 August 04 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. 6242
|
|
|
|
|
|
APPELLANT:
|
Shao
Ng
|
|
|
|
|
REGISTERED OWNER OF PROPERTY:
|
Goei
and Kong Ng
|
|
|
|
|
CIVIC ADDRESS OF PROPERTY:
|
584
Calvin Court
|
|
|
|
|
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY:
|
Lot
345; DL 207; Plan NWP55826
|
|
|
|
|
APPEAL:
|
An appeal for the
relaxation of Section 104.6(1)(a) of the Burnaby Zoning Bylaw which, if
permitted, would allow for the interior alteration and addition to the upper
floor of an existing single family home at 584 Calvin Court. The principal
building height would be 3 storeys where a maximum of 2.5 storeys is
permitted. (Zone R4)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
APPELLANT’S SUBMISSION:
Shao Ng submitted an application requesting
a relaxation of the zoning bylaw to expand the second storey and increase the
size of the master bedroom. Mr. Ng is moving into his parent’s home which
they are vacating, and is renovating to create a more comfortable master
bedroom.
Mr.
Shao Ng and Mr. Kong Ng appeared before members of the Board of Variance.
BURNABY
PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
The subject site is zoned R4
Residential District and is located in the Lochdale neighbourhood where the
age and condition of the existing single and two family dwellings vary. This
slightly irregular interior lot is approximately 59.5 ft. wide and 150.0 ft.
deep and is fronting Calvin Court to the southwest. The subject site abuts
single family lots to the northwest and southeast. A greenway of the Burnaby
Mountain Urban Trail borders the site to the northeast. Along the
northeastern (rear) property line, the site is restricted by an approximately
45.0 ft. wide “no built/landscape buffer” easement. Vehicular access to the
subject site is provided via Calvin Court to the southwest. The site observes
a downward slope of approximately 3.0 ft. from east to west.
The subject site contains a 2 ½
storey single family dwelling, consisting of a basement, main floor and upper
floor which were originally built in 1980. The applicant proposes various
additions and interior alterations to the dwelling, including an addition to
the upper floor. The upper floor addition is the subject of this appeal.
The appeal is to vary Section
104.6(1)(a) - Height of Principal Building for single family dwelling of the
Zoning Bylaw from 2 ½ storey and 29.5 ft. to 3 storey and 29.5 ft. for a
building with a sloping roof.
The intent of the height
requirements of the Zoning Bylaw is to mitigate the massing impacts of the
new buildings and structures on neighbouring properties and to preserve the views.
The existing building contains an
upper floor with an area of 748.0 sq. ft. which is located on the eastern
section of the building. According to the Zoning Bylaw this section of the
building is considered as a “storey, half” since it contains less than 50% of
the gross floor area of the storey immediately below (first floor). The proposed
addition would extend the upper floor 16.5 ft. further to the front of the
building, while maintaining the existing width of 22.0 ft. As a result, the
proposed upper floor with an area of 1132.3 sq. ft. would exceed 50% of the
gross floor area of the main floor by 282.3 sq. ft. or 33 % (it is noted that
the gross floor area of the main floor does not include an area of the
existing 2-car garage, attached to the front of the dwelling). The proposed
upper floor after extension would not be considered as a “storey, half” and
will be counted as a “storey”.
The proposed addition is the extension
of the existing upper floor and would not increase the total height of the
building. In fact, height of the proposed section of the upper floor would
remain less than the height of the existing section of the upper floor. The
addition would essentially appear as a large dormer, set back 4.5 ft. from
the existing front face of the garage below.
The upper floor addition would not
create an additional storey nor would add to the existing height of the
building of approximately 28.15 ft. However, considering the definition of
“storey” and “storey, half” in the Zoning Bylaw, the upper floor should be
counted as a “storey” following the proposed extension compare to “storey,
half” in the current condition.
The subject dwelling has a maximum
building depth of 60.0 ft. Therefore, despite an approximate 13.0 ft. deep
rear yard as a potential for horizontal extension of the building (with the
rear yard setback of 57.9 ft.), there are limited design options which would
not create a need for another variance on the subject site.
In summary, the proposed variance to
the height requirements of the Zoning Bylaw would not impact neighbouring
properties and would not be out of the ordinary within the existing street
frontage.
In view of the above, this
Department does not object to the granting of this variance.
ADJACENT OWNER’S COMMENTS:
No submissions were received
regarding this appeal.
|
|
MOVED BY Mr. Pound
SECONDED BY mr. nemeth
|
|
|
|
THAT based on the plans submitted
this appeal be ALLOWED.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
|
|
(b)
|
APPEAL
NUMBER:
|
B.V. 6243
|
|
|
|
|
|
APPELLANT:
|
Derek
Drew
|
|
|
|
|
REGISTERED OWNER OF PROPERTY:
|
0779999
BC LTD
|
|
|
|
|
CIVIC ADDRESS OF PROPERTY:
|
3010
Boundary Road
|
|
|
|
|
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY:
|
Lot
1; DL 69; Plan NWP1321
|
|
|
|
|
APPEAL:
|
An appeal for the
relaxation of Sections 304.6, 6.13(1)(a) and 6.14(5)(a) of the Burnaby Zoning
Bylaw which, if permitted, would allow for the retention of an existing deck
and fence at 3010 Boundary Road. The following variances are being
requested:
a) an existing
fence encroaching into the vision clearance area with varying heights up to a
maximum of 5.5 feet where the maximum height of 3.28 feet is permitted;
b) retention of the
existing front yard fence which is of varying heights up to a maximum of 6.08
feet where the maximum height of 3.28 feet is permitted; and,
c) an existing
deck encroaching 2.1 feet into the required front yard of 6.5 feet. (Zone
C4)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
APPELLANT’S SUBMISSION:
Derek Drew, Sutton Centre
Realty, submitted an application requesting a relaxation of the zoning bylaw to
allow for retention of a fence and deck. Mr. Drew explained the fence does not
block vision to traffic, and provides additional security to the property. As
well, the deck and fence beautify the site, provide a private space for staff,
and give it a more professional look.
Mr. Derek Drew and Mr. John Skender appeared
before members of the Board of Variance.
BURNABY
PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
The subject site is located
in the Cascades-Schou area, in a mixed-use commercial neighbourhood in which
the age and conditions of buildings vary. The site is zoned C4 Service
Commercial District, which is intended to accommodate vehicular oriented
commercial uses of low intensity. The subject lot measures approximately 66 ft.
in width and 122 ft. in depth. This corner lot fronts onto the east side of
Boundary Road and flanks Manor Street to the north. The site takes vehicle
access from a rear lane to the east. The site is bordered by a parking area of a
gasoline service station to the south. There is a single family dwelling across
the lane to the east and a single family complex across Boundary Road to the
west, within the Vancouver area. The site observes a downward slope of
approximately 8.00 ft. in the south-north direction.
The subject property is
improved with a two storey office building, including one level of underground
parking, and associated on-site parking to the rear and landscape at the front.
The existing building was originally built in 1977 and further improved with
various interior alterations around 2004 and 2007. In 2014 the applicant
applied for a preliminary plan approval with respect to a new deck proposal.
Sometime around 2015 an outdoor deck and associated fence was built within the
existing landscaped area at the front of the subject site without the benefit
of the preliminary plan approval. This unauthorized deck and fence is the
subject of the three appeals.
The first a) appeal is to
allow the existing fence to encroach into the vision clearance area at the
intersection of Boundary Road and Manor Street. The fence will have a varying
height of up to 5.50 ft. along the Boundary Road property line to the west and
along the Manor Street property line to the north, where a maximum height of
3.28 ft. is permitted.
The second b) appeal is to
allow retention of the existing fence
at the front yard along the Boundary Road, with varying heights up to a maximum
of 6.08 ft. where the maximum height of 3.28 ft. is permitted.
The third c) appeal is to
allow the existing deck
to encroach 2.10 ft. into the property’s front yard along the Boundary Road
where no patio or deck/terrace is permitted within the required front yard of
6.50 ft.
With respect to the first
a) variance, the intent of the Bylaw in requiring the vision clearance is to
facilitate vehicular, pedestrian and cyclists’ safety at street and lane
intersections. The vision clearance area is a triangular area formed by the
property lines and a line joining two points along the property lines. In this
case, the joining line must be 29.53 ft. from the intersection of the streets.
With respect to the second
b) and third c) variance, the intent of the Bylaw to limit the height of the
fences or walls to a maximum height of 3.28 ft. and not permitting patios or
decks/terraces within the required front yard is to ensure uniform open front
yards and to limit the massing impacts of such structures on neighbouring
properties.
The already built deck,
24.00 ft. wide by 16.00 ft. deep, is located approximately 4.40 ft. away from
the Boundary Road property line and 12.00 ft. away from the Manor Street
property line. The deck is raised from the adjacent finished grade up to a
maximum of 2.00 ft. at the northwest corner; this portion of the site observes
the lowest grades. The finished grades around the deck area have been slightly
raised, approximately 1.00 ft., as compared to the existing grades. The deck is
enclosed partly with a solid wooden fence and partly with a semi-transparent
wooden fence/guard, built around the seating area at the perimeter of the deck.
Immediately in front of the west (Boundary Road) edge of the deck and the north
(Manor Street) edge of the deck a tall hedge, approximately 6.00 ft. high, has
been planted. The mature trees and shrubs currently exist within the Boundary
Road and Manor Street boulevard area along the west and north property line.
It should be noted that the
Zoning Bylaw requires no hedge, shrub, tree or other growth be maintained or
allowed to grow so as to obstruct vision clearance within a private property.
With respect to the first
a) variance, almost entire fence/guard enclosure along the north (Manor Street)
edge of the deck and approximately a half of the guard enclosure along the west
(Boundary Road) edge of the deck encroaches into the vision clearance area,
which is a concern. The fence/guard structure within this vision clearance area
is up to 2.22 ft. over the maximum allowable height, which is a major variance.
A mitigating factor, to a degree, could be that there is a stop sign for the
upcoming traffic from Manor Street going onto Boundary Road. Also, there is no
left turn option at this point, as vehicles traveling in opposite directions
are separated by the boulevard median in the subject section of Boundary Road.
In summary, given ongoing
concerns regarding traffic safety, this Department questions the advisability
of reducing the vision clearance setback. Therefore, this Department cannot
support the granting of the first a) major variance, which reduces traffic safety
at the street intersection.
With respect to the second
b) variance, according to the submitted drawings, the over height portion of
the fence/guard enclosure consists mainly of a solid fence section,
approximately 8.08 ft. long, at the southern front portion of the deck, and a
semi-transparent fence/guard section, approximately 15.93 ft. long, at the
northern front portion of the deck. The solid fence section exceeds the
permitted height by 2.80 ft. and the semi-transparent guard section exceeds the
permitted height by up to 2.22 ft., which is a substantial variance. Further,
although the excess height does not create direct massing impacts on the
distant neighbouring buildings across the Boundary Road to the west, as well as
neighbouring properties to the north and south, it appears that this variance
is a result of a design choice rather than a necessity.
For this reason, this
Department cannot support the granting of the second b) variance, which further
contributes to the first a) variance.
With respect to the third
c) variance, the raised deck/terrace and the fence around it encroach with its
entire width (24 ft.) into the required front yard setback, 1.80 ft. at the
northwest corner and 2.1 ft. at the southwest corner. Again, although the requested
relaxation has no impact on the visual character of the neighbouring
properties, it is difficult to find hardship in this case.
Further, Section 6.12(1)(e)
“Projections into Required Yards” of the Zoning Bylaw permits uncovered patio
or terrace, which may be open or enclosed, in any yard in an A, R or RM
District (subject to the fence height limitations as specified in Section 6.14
of this Bylaw) which are generally residential oriented districts. Since the
subject site is zoned C4
Service Commercial District, a front yard deck encroachment brings a question
of suitability of an outdoor deck/terrace use in this case.
In view of the above, this
Department cannot support the granting of the third c) appeal.
ADJACENT OWNER’S COMMENTS:
No submissions were received regarding
this appeal.
|
MOVED BY Mr. Clark
SECONDED BY Mr. dhatt
|
|
|
|
THAT based on the plans submitted
part (a) of this appeal be ALLOWED.
CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY
MOVED BY Mr. Clark
SECONDED BY
Mr. Nemeth
THAT based on the plans
submitted part (b) of this appeal be ALLOWED.
CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY
MOVED BY Mr. Clark
SECONDED BY Mr. dhatt
THAT based on the plans
submitted part (c) of this appeal be ALLOWED.
CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY
|
|
(c)
|
APPEAL
NUMBER:
|
B.V. 6244
|
|
|
|
|
|
APPELLANT:
|
Amarjit
Dhillon
|
|
|
|
|
REGISTERED OWNER OF PROPERTY:
|
Sharon
and Amarjit Dhillon
|
|
|
|
|
CIVIC ADDRESS OF PROPERTY:
|
7637
Clayton Avenue
|
|
|
|
|
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY:
|
Lot
88; DL 85; Plan NWP24538
|
|
|
|
|
APPEAL:
|
An appeal for the
relaxation of Section 101.7(b) of the Burnaby Zoning Bylaw which, if
permitted, would allow for the construction of a new single family home at
7637 Clayton Avenue. The depth of the principal building would be 72.25 feet
where a maximum depth of 60.0 feet is permitted. (Zone R1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Prior to
the commencement of this appeal (approximately 6:35 p.m.), Mr. Rana Dhatt
declared a conflict of interest and left the Cafeteria for the duration of this
appeal.
APPELLANT’S SUBMISSION:
Amarjeet Dhillon submitted
an application to allow for the construction of a new home and is requesting a
variance of the principal building depth.
Mr. Dhillon appeared before members of
the Board of Variance.
BURNABY
PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
The subject site, which is
zoned R1 Residential District, is located in a stable single-family
neighbourhood in the Morley-Buckingham area. This irregular interior lot is an
existing oversized lot (12,582.20 sq. ft.) with a lot width of approximately
80.00 ft. and a lot depth of 165.10 ft. (along the northern property line). The
site at the southeast corner is “clipped” where Clayton Avenue (approaching
from the south) connects to Gordon Street (approaching from the east). At the
intersection, Clayton Avenue continues to the north as a 10.00 ft. wide public
walkway. As a result, the subject site has a frontage of approximately 50.00 ft.
wide at the intersection and a 38.00 ft. wide along the public walkway.
Following construction of
the new dwelling, vehicular access to the site will remain off Clayton Avenue
at the southeast corner of the site. There is no lane access at the rear or side
of the property. The site is adjoining single family dwellings on the north,
west, and south and across the public walkway to the east. The site observes a
downward slope of approximately 10.00 ft. from the front lot line (eastern
property line) to the rear (western property line).
The subject lot is proposed
to be redeveloped with a new single family dwelling, a secondary suite and an
attached garage.
The appeal is to vary
Section 101.7(b) – Depth of Principal Building of the Zoning Bylaw from 60.00 ft.
to 72.25 ft. to allow construction of a new single family dwelling.
The intent of the principal
building depth requirements of the Zoning Bylaw is to prevent construction of
the dwellings that present long imposing walls, where the massing of the building
impacts the neighbouring properties.
The proposed building will
exceed the maximum permitted building depth by 12.25 ft. The applicant is
required to submit a revised plan reducing depth of the roof overhang to a
maximum of 2.95 ft. Section 3 of the Zoning Bylaw exclude the roof overhang up
to 2.95 ft. in length from calculation of the building depth (the proposed
depth of the roof overhang is currently 3.92 ft.). The proposed building depth
is significantly higher than the 60.00 ft. permitted building depth in R1
Residential District.
The proposed building is
located approximately at the same location as the existing dwelling. The
building is a two-storey dwelling featuring three major recesses at the front
and rear elevations. The proposed design would provide the required front yard
setback of 29.5 ft. following the “clipped” circular portion of the site (at
the southeast corner). As a result, the south and north elevations adjoining
the properties to the south and north would not appear as long imposing walls
with significant negative impacts on the neighbouring properties.
The proposed depth of the
building will appear smaller than the maximum permitted building depth of the
Zoning Bylaw (56.93 ft. viewing from the south and 55.75 ft. viewing from the
north). In addition, the generous setbacks of the upper floor from the main
floor building footprint at the front and rear elevations (8.25 ft. and 9.25
ft. respectively) will further help to mitigate massing impacts of the
additional building depth.
Although the site geometry
may present some challenges with respect to the construction, it is difficult
to identify any hardship on this site. In fact, on this oversized lot, the need
for relaxation of the building depth appears to be a result of the design
preference (i.e. proposing two large covered decks, 10.00 ft. by 22.25 ft. and
10.67 ft. by 23.57 ft. in size on the west (rear) of the building will
contribute to the excessive building depth by 10.0 ft.).
The proposed setbacks and
the building design will mitigate the visual impacts of the building massing on
the neighbouring properties. However, staff recommends that a modification
should be made to the design of the residence, perhaps by relocating or
reducing the decks size, in order to bring this proposal into compliance with
the building depth requirements of the Bylaw. Alternatively, a modification to
the design, which would result in a substantial reduction in the requested
variance, is recommended.
For this reason, this
Department does not support the granting of this variance.
ADJACENT OWNER’S COMMENTS:
Correspondence was received from the
property owner of 7629 Clayton Avenue in opposition to this appeal. The writer
advised that he will be greatly impacted by the construction of the proposed
home as he shares a south side property line.
The owner of 7629 Clayton Avenue
appeared at the Board of Variance. The owner requested that his correspondence
be withdrawn as his concerns were allayed after speaking with the appellant.
|
MOVED BY Mr. NEMETH
SECONDED BY mr. Pound
|
|
|
|
THAT
based on the plans submitted this appeal be ALLOWED.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
|
Upon conclusion of this
appeal (approximately 6:45 p.m.), Mr. Dhatt returned to the Board of Variance
hearing and took his seat at the table.
|
No
items of new business were brought forward at this time.
|
|
MOVED BY mr. pound
SECONDED BY mr. nemeth
|
|
|
|
THAT
this Hearing do now adjourn.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
|
|
The
Hearing adjourned at 6:50 p.m.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
________________________
|
|
|
Ms.
C. Richter
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
________________________
|
|
|
Mr.
G. Clark
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
________________________
|
|
|
Mr.
R. Dhatt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
________________________
|
|
|
Mr.
S. Nemeth
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
________________________
|
________________________
|
|
Ms.
E. Prior
ADMINISTRATIVE
OFFICER
|
Mr.
B. Pound
|