|
|
|
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 Council Chamber, Main Floor, City Hall, 4949 Canada Way,
Burnaby, B.C., on Thursday, 2016 July 07 at 6:00 PM.
|
|
|
|
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 called the meeting to order at 6:10 p.m.
|
|
MOVED BY Mr. DHATT
SECONDED BY mr. POUND
|
|
|
|
THAT the minutes of the Burnaby
Board of Variance Hearing held on 2016 June 02 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. 6231
|
|
|
|
|
|
APPELLANT:
|
Ken
Fung
|
|
|
|
|
REGISTERED OWNER OF PROPERTY:
|
Qi
and Wei Zhang
|
|
|
|
|
CIVIC ADDRESS OF PROPERTY:
|
8211
Lakeland Drive
|
|
|
|
|
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY:
|
Lot
86; DL 58; Plan 33225
|
|
|
|
|
APPEAL:
|
An
appeal for the relaxation of Section 6.6(2)(d) of the Burnaby Zoning Bylaw
which, if permitted, would allow for the construction of a new single family
home at 8211 Lakeland Drive. The distance between the detached garage and the
side lot line would be 2.5 feet where a minimum distance of 3.94 feet is
required. (Zone R1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
APPELLANT’S SUBMISSION:
Ken Fung submitted an
application to allow for the construction of a new home at 8211 Lakeland Drive.
Mr. Fung requested the variance to preserve existing trees on the property.
Ken Fung, on behalf of the homeowners,
appeared before members of the Board of Variance.
BURNABY PLANNING AND BUILDING
DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
The subject site, zoned R1
Residential District, is located in a stable single-family neighbourhood in the
Government Road area. This large interior lot, approximately 76 ft. wide and
130 ft. long, fronts Lakeland Drive to the south. Single family dwellings abut
the subject site to the west, north, east and across Lakeland Drive to the
south. Vehicular access to the subject site is provided from Lakeland Drive;
there is no lane access. The site observes a substantial downwards slope of
approximately 18.6 ft. from rear to front. The site contains a 7.5 ft. wide
sewer and drainage easement along the rear property line.
A new single family
dwelling with a detached garage is currently under construction on the subject
site (BLD15-01631). However, the building permit was issued in error with respect
to the side yard setback of the accessory detached garage, which was approved
at 2.5 ft. where a minimum side yard setback of 3.94 ft. is required for
accessory buildings. This error was identified by City staff upon inspection of
foundation forms. As a result, a variance is requested in order to permit
construction to continue according to the approved plans.
The appeal proposes a side
yard setback of 2.5 ft. from the west property line to the accessory building,
with a further projection for roof eaves of 1.0 ft., where a minimum side yard
setback of 3.94 ft. is required.
The intent of the Bylaw is
to mitigate the impacts of building massing on neighbouring properties.
The Bylaw requires an
accessory building to be set back at least 3.94 ft. from the side property
line, except where such accessory building is situated within the rear 29.53
ft. of the lot and not less than 70.54 ft. from the street, in which case a
setback from the side lot line can be reduced to nil.
In this case, the approved
building permit drawings include a 22 ft. wide by 20 ft. deep detached garage in the northwest corner of the site,
approximately 16.33 ft. from the rear (north) property line and 93.74 ft. from
the front (south) property line. As such, the detached garage extends outside
of the rear 29.53 ft. of the property by approximately 6.8 ft., and therefore
cannot observe the nil side yard setback provided in the Bylaw. The location of
the garage outside of the rear 29.53 ft. of the property is a result of the
above-mentioned sewer and drainage easement, which occupies the rear 7.5 ft. of
the lot.
Further, although the
detached garage is located in an elevated portion of the site, the garage is
sunken into the ground approximately 6 ft. and 4 ft. at its northwest and southwest
corners respectively. As a result, only slightly more than half of the west
elevation is visible from the neighbouring property to the west. A 5.91 ft.
high fence along the shared property line, if constructed, would screen the
entire west wall of the detached garage, leaving only a small portion of the
roof exposed. Given the small scale of the proposed side yard encroachment and
the siting of the neighbouring residence over 70 ft. from the shared property
line, no impacts to the neighbouring property are expected.
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. 6232
|
|
|
|
|
|
APPELLANT:
|
Muiz
Awawdji
|
|
|
|
|
REGISTERED OWNER OF PROPERTY:
|
Sanjeet
Ark and Aye Kyi
|
|
|
|
|
CIVIC ADDRESS OF PROPERTY:
|
7683
Burgess Street
|
|
|
|
|
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY:
|
Lot
15; DL 29; Plan NWP3035
|
|
|
|
|
APPEAL:
|
An
appeal for the relaxation of Section 6.3.1 of the Burnaby Zoning Bylaw which,
if permitted, would allow for the construction of a new single family home at
7683 Burgess Street. The distance between the principal building and the
detached garage would be 10.45 feet where a minimum distance of 14.8 feet is
required. (Zone R5)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
APPELLANT’S SUBMISSION:
Muiz Awadji submitted an
application to allow for the construction of a new single family home with a
detached garage at 7683 Burgess Street. The applicants requested the garage for
safety and security reasons.
Mr. Sanjeet Ark and Ms. Aye
Kyi appeared before members of the Board of Variance.
BURNABY PLANNING AND BUILDING
DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
The subject site, which is
zoned R5 Residential District, is located in the Edmonds neighbourhood, in
which the age and condition of single and two family dwellings vary. This
slightly irregular interior lot, approximately 33 ft. wide and 110 ft. long,
fronts onto Burgess Street to the northeast. The subject site abuts single
family lots to the northwest and southeast. Vehicular access to the subject
site is proposed to be retained via the rear lane to the southwest of the
property. The site is relatively flat with a downward slope of approximately 2
ft. in the northwest-southeast direction.
The subject site is
currently under construction for a new single family dwelling in accordance
with a recently issued building permit (BLD15-01759). The construction of the
dwelling is in the early framing stage. The building permit included a detached
carport, the construction of which has not yet started. The applicant wishes to
replace the detached carport with a detached garage in a similar location.
However, the proposed size of the proposed detached garage, which is larger
than the approved detached carport, creates the need for a variance.
The appeal would permit a
distance between the principal building and the detached garage of 10.45 ft.,
where a minimum distance of 14.8 ft. is required.
The Bylaw requires a
separation between buildings on the same lot in order to prevent massing
impacts on the occupants of the subject property and neighbouring properties,
as well as to provide for sufficient outdoor living space.
The subject detached garage
would be within the footprint of the previously approved 20 ft. wide and 14.83
ft. deep detached carport, but is proposed to extend further to the northeast
towards the building by 5.17 ft., to a total depth of 20 ft., and is proposed
to extend by 1 ft. on each side, to a total width of 22 ft. The proposed
detached garage would contain two parking spaces, accessed off the rear lane.
Although this variance
request would increase the massing of the accessory structure, the view lines
of neighbouring residences to the northwest and southeast (sides) of the
subject property would not be affected. In addition, the screening provided by
mature trees and hedging along the shared (side) property lines, which exist on
the adjacent properties to the northwest and southeast, would limit any impacts
of this increased massing on the rear yards of these properties.
With respect to outdoor
living space, this variance would reduce the provision of outdoor living space
by slightly over 100 sq. ft., with approximately 345 sq. ft. of green area
remaining within the rear yard. There is some concern that the garage could
create a tunnel effect, as it overlaps nearly the full width of the dwelling,
with the exception of 2.54 ft. The proposed two bay windows at the upper floor,
projecting 1.6 ft. into this space, could also contribute further to a sense of
enclosure. Some additional outdoor space would be available in the
approximately 32 ft. deep front yard; however, this area would not afford the
same level of privacy as a rear yard.
It is noted that the
existing dwelling on the subject site observed a front yard setback of
approximately 19 ft., significantly less than the current Zoning Bylaw
requires. The siting of the proposed dwelling just meets the front yard setback
requirement (approximately 32 ft.), based on front yard averaging, leaving no
room to relocate the dwelling further forward. Also, the slightly skewed
geometry of the subject site affects the overall length on the site available
for new development.
In summary, although the
site is somewhat constrained by its geometry and the development pattern in the
subject block (which affects the front yard requirements) and no significant
negative impacts are expected to result from the proposal, alternatives exist
that fully
comply with the requirements of the Zoning Bylaw, including the previously
permitted design. For this reason, this Department cannot support the granting
of this variance.
ADJACENT
OWNER’S COMMENTS:
No submissions were received regarding
this appeal.
|
MOVED BY Mr. clark
SECONDED BY mr. Pound
|
|
|
|
THAT based on the plans submitted
this appeal be ALLOWED.
CARRIED
OPPOSED: Mr. Nemeth
|
|
(c)
|
APPEAL
NUMBER:
|
B.V. 6233
|
|
|
|
|
|
APPELLANT:
|
Chatranjan
Saran
|
|
|
|
|
REGISTERED OWNER OF PROPERTY:
|
Chatranjan
and Surinder Saran
|
|
|
|
|
CIVIC ADDRESS OF PROPERTY:
|
5936
Keith Street
|
|
|
|
|
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY:
|
Lot
13; DL 159; Plan NWP1219
|
|
|
|
|
APPEAL:
|
An
appeal for the relaxation of Section 102.8(1) of the Burnaby Zoning Bylaw
which, if permitted, would allow for the construction of a new single family
home at 5936 Keith Street. The front Yard setback would be 35.10 feet, to the
porch post, where a minimum front yard setback of 43.91 feet is required based
on front yard averaging. The porch overhang projects 3.0 feet beyond the
porch post. (Zone R2)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
APPELLANT’S SUBMISSION:
Mr. Saran submitted an
application to allow for the construction of a new home at 5936 Keith Street.
Mr. Saran requested the front yard setback due to front yard averaging which
includes a neighbouring property that is 200 feet deep with a front yard
setback of approximately 50 feet. The subject property is only 120 feet deep.
Mr. Saran appeared before members of
the Board of Variance.
BURNABY PLANNING AND BUILDING
DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
The subject site, zoned R2
Residential District, is located in the Clinton-Glenwood neighbourhood in which
the age and condition of single family dwellings vary. This corner lot,
approximately 51 ft. wide and 120 ft. long, fronts onto Keith Street to the
north and is flanked by Buller Avenue to the west. The subject site abuts
single family dwellings to the east and south. The northern section of Buller Avenue
is closed to traffic and developed as a pedestrian pathway. Vehicular access to
the subject site is proposed to be retained from the southern section of Buller
Avenue; there is no lane access. The subject property observes a downward slope
of approximately 22 ft. from the front to the rear. The site is restricted by a
10 ft. wide sanitary/storm sewer easement along the rear (south) property line.
The subject lot is proposed
to be developed with a new single family dwelling with a secondary suite and attached
garage.
The appeal proposes a front
yard setback of 35.10 ft. for the
new single family dwelling,
measured to the front porch posts, with a further projection of 3.0 ft. for
porch roof eaves, where front yard averaging requires a minimum setback of
43.91 ft. from the Keith Avenue property line.
In 1991, Council responded
to public concerns with respect to the bulk and massing of newer and larger
homes that were being built in existing neighbourhoods. Several text amendments
to the Zoning Bylaw were made 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 the new construction into existing street frontages with
minimal impacts.
In this case, the front
yard averaging calculations are based on two neighbouring dwellings at 5946 and
5956 Keith Street immediately east of the subject site. These front yards are
37.61 ft. and 50.21 ft. respectively. The neighbouring property at 5956 Keith
Street (second to the east) affects these calculations.
As mentioned above, the
front yard setback is measured to the posts of the front porch, which is
centrally located on the front elevation. The main body of the proposed
dwelling is set back an additional 2.5 ft. at the ground floor, resulting in a
setback of 37.6 ft. The proposed second floor is set back a similar distance,
excluding two 1 ft. deep by 7.5 ft. wide bay windows. The proposed dwelling would
be situated essentially in line with the neighbouring dwelling to the east, if
the face of the main floor is considered. Such placement would not result in
any impacts to the neighbouring dwelling to the east. The current dwelling on
the subject site observes a front yard setback of approximately 25 ft.
Therefore, the proposed placement of the new dwelling would improve upon
existing conditions. To the west, beyond the pedestrian pathway, the homes
appear to observe the minimum required setback in the R2 District, which is
24.6 ft.; however, due to the intervention of Buller Avenue, those setbacks are
not included in the front yard averaging calculation.
With respect to the
existing streetscape, the proposed siting of the subject dwelling would be
consistent with the majority of the neighbouring dwellings in the subject block
which observe an average front yard setback of approximately 38 ft. The only
exception would be the second neighbouring dwelling to the east, which observes
the largest setback on the block (50.21 ft.), and the dwelling at 6086 Keith
Street, near the eastern terminus of the subject block, which observes a
shorter setback (approximately 22 ft.).
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
|
|
(d)
|
APPEAL
NUMBER:
|
B.V. 6234
|
|
|
|
|
|
APPELLANT:
|
Andrew
and Pietro Cappellano
|
|
|
|
|
REGISTERED OWNER OF PROPERTY:
|
Andrew
and Pietro Cappellano
|
|
|
|
|
CIVIC ADDRESS OF PROPERTY:
|
3223
Bainbridge Avenue
|
|
|
|
|
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY:
|
Lot
17; DL 44; Plan NWP23696
|
|
|
|
|
APPEAL:
|
An
appeal for the relaxation of Section 101.8 of the Burnaby Zoning Bylaw which,
if permitted, would allow for the construction of a new single family home
with secondary suite and attached garage at 3223 Bainbridge Avenue. The
front yard setback, to the foundation, would be 24.50 feet where a minimum
front yard setback of 39.80 feet is required based on front yard averaging.
The roof overhang would be 2.0 feet beyond the foundation. (Zone R1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
APPELLANT’S SUBMISSION:
Andrew and Pietro
Cappellano submitted an application to allow for the construction of a new home
at 3223 Bainbridge Avenue. The applicants advised that the front yard setback
is being requested due to the square shape of the subject property. The
writers stated that undue hardship would be caused by adhering to the 40 foot
front yard setback which would result in a back yard of 14.25 feet.
Mr. and Mrs. Cappellano appeared
before members of the Board of Variance.
BURNABY PLANNING AND BUILDING
DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
The subject site, zoned R1
Residential District, is located in the Government Road neighbourhood in which
the age and condition of single family dwellings vary. This corner lot,
approximately 106 ft. wide and 102 ft. deep, fronts onto Bainbridge Avenue to
the east and flanks Hillview Street to the south. The subject site abuts single
family residential lots to the north and west. Vehicular access to the subject
site is proposed to be retained from Bainbridge Avenue; there is no lane
access. The subject property observes a downward slope of approximately 4.2 ft.
in the north to south direction.
The subject lot is proposed
to be developed with a new single family dwelling, with a secondary suite and
attached garage.
The appeal proposes a front
yard setback of 24.5 ft. for the
new single family dwelling,
measured to the foundation, with a further 2.0 ft. projection for roof eaves,
where front yard averaging requires a minimum setback of 39.8 ft. from the
Bainbridge Avenue property line.
In 1991, Council responded
to public concerns with respect to the bulk and massing of newer and larger
homes that were being built in existing neighbourhoods. Several text amendments
to the Zoning Bylaw were made 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 the new construction into existing street frontages with
minimal impacts.
In this case, the front
yard averaging calculations are based on two neighbouring dwellings at 3183 and
3149 Bainbridge Avenue immediately north of the subject site. These front yards
are 46.4 ft. and 33.2 ft. respectively. The neighbouring property at 3183
Bainbridge Avenue (immediately north) affects these calculations. It is noted
that the current dwelling on the subject site observes a similar front yard
setback of approximately 46 ft.
The front yard setback is
measured to the foundation of the northeast corner of the proposed dwelling, in
the location of an attached garage. The remainder of the subject dwelling would
observe a varying front yard setback, with a 31 ft. setback in the center and a
30 ft. setback at the southeast corner. The upper floor would be generally
aligned with the main body of the dwelling, but set back a further 4.68 ft. at
the northeast corner (resulting in distance of 35.68 ft. from the front
property line). In addition, the upper floor would be set back on both sides in
relation to the main floor face, 4.67 ft. on the north side and 9 ft. on the
south side.
The proposed siting would
place the dwelling 21.9 ft. in front of the neighbouring dwelling immediately
to the north, as measured from the northeast corner of the attached garage. The
12.71 ft. wide north side yard adjacent to the garage is proposed to be
utilized as a parking space. This significant side yard setback, as well as the
proposed upper floor setback would somewhat lessen massing impacts on the
neighbouring property to the north. Also, the mature greenery along the shared
north property line, existing mainly on the neighbouring site, would provide
some screening. Nevertheless, the proposed variance is significant and would
have massing impacts on this neighbouring property. In addition, although a limited
number of windows are proposed within the area of encroachment, a large upper
window overlooks the neighbouring front yard.
With respect to the
existing streetscape, the subject block consists of four lots. The two
northernmost lots observe shorter front yard setbacks of approximately 30-33
ft.; the two remaining lots, including the subject lot, observe larger front
yard setbacks of approximately 46 ft. This proposal would provide the subject
dwelling with the most forward placement in the subject block, with no
transition between it and the neighbouring property immediately to the north.
In fact, the most forward portion of the dwelling would be adjacent to this
neighbouring property. Therefore, although this is a shallow lot, some design
adjustments could be made to better address this relationship and the intent of
the bylaw to ease the new construction into existing street frontages with
minimal impacts.
In view of the above, this
Department cannot support the granting of this variance.
ADJACENT OWNER’S COMMENTS:
No submissions were received regarding
this appeal.
|
MOVED BY Mr. NEMeth
SECONDED BY mr. pound
|
|
|
|
THAT based on the plans submitted
this appeal be ALLOWED.
CARRIED
OPPOSED: Mr. Clark
|
|
(e)
|
APPEAL
NUMBER:
|
B.V. 6235
|
|
|
|
|
|
APPELLANT:
|
Jatinderpal
Gill
|
|
|
|
|
REGISTERED OWNER OF PROPERTY:
|
1072218
BC LTD
|
|
|
|
|
CIVIC ADDRESS OF PROPERTY:
|
4935 and
4937 Georgia Street
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This appeal was WITHDRAWN
at the Board of Variance Hearing.
|
(f)
|
APPEAL
NUMBER:
|
B.V. 6236
|
|
|
|
|
|
APPELLANT:
|
Daniel
Masellis
|
|
|
|
|
REGISTERED OWNER OF PROPERTY:
|
Daniel
and Wendy Masellis
|
|
|
|
|
CIVIC ADDRESS OF PROPERTY:
|
7265
Ridgeview Drive
|
|
|
|
|
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY:
|
Lot
224; DL 215 / 216; Plan NWP53168
|
|
|
|
|
APPEAL:
|
An appeal for the
relaxation of Sections 102.8 and 102.10 of the Burnaby Zoning Bylaw which, if
permitted, would allow for the construction of a new single family home at
7265 Ridgeview Drive. The following variances are being requested:
a) The front yard
setback would be 21.09 feet to the porch posts, where a minimum front yard
setback of 24.6 feet is required. The front porch post overhang would project
2.67 feet beyond the posts; and,
b) The
rear yard setback would be 19.75 feet to the foundation, where a minimum rear
yard setback of 29.5 feet is required. The cantilevered deck would project
3.83 feet beyond the foundation. (Zone R2)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Prior to
the commencement of this appeal (approximately 6:50 p.m.), Mr. Guyle Clark
declared a conflict of interest and left the Council Chamber for the duration
of this appeal.
APPELLANT’S SUBMISSION:
Danny Masellis submitted an
application to allow for the construction of a new home at 7265 Ridgeview Drive.
Mr. Masellis requested the variances due to the odd shape and curved profile of
the lot. The required setbacks would create a long, narrow and curved building
envelope.
Mr. Masellis and his
contractor appeared before members of the Board of Variance.
BURNABY PLANNING AND BUILDING
DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
The subject site, zoned R2
Residential District, is located in the Westridge neighbourhood, in which the
age and condition of single family dwellings vary. This irregular lot,
approximately 116 ft. wide (along the south property line) and 84 ft. deep
(along the west property line), has approximately 167 ft. of frontage on Ridgeview
Drive, which curves along the north and east sides of the property. As a
result, the subject lot resembles a skewed trapezoid with a rounded northeast
corner; however, given that the “corner” is the result of a curve in a single
road, the property does not meet the definition of a corner lot. Abutting the
subject site to the south and west are single family dwellings. Across
Ridgeview Drive to the east and north, the subject site is bordered by a
forested portion of the Burnaby Mountain Conservation Area. Vehicular access to
the site is provided from Ridgeview Drive; there is no lane access. The site
observes a substantial downward slope of approximately 16 ft. from the
southeast corner to the northwest corner of the lot.
A new single family
dwelling with attached garage is proposed for the subject site, for which two
variances are requested.
The first a) appeal
requests a front yard setback of 21.09 ft., measured to the front porch post of
the proposed single family dwelling, with a further projection for roof eaves
of 2.67 ft., where a minimum front yard setback of 24.6 ft. is required from
the Ridgeview Drive property line.
The intent of the Bylaw is
to mitigate the massing impacts of new buildings or structures on neighbouring
properties and to preserve a unified streetscape.
The second b) appeal
requests a rear yard setback of 19.75 ft., measured to the foundation of the
proposed single family dwelling, with a further projection for roof eaves of
2.67 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.
The two variances are
related to the lengthy frontage and shallow depth of the property. In
particular, the average depth of the site is approximately 75 ft., measured
from the centerline of the approximately 167 ft. long frontage. As such, the
application of the required front and rear yard setbacks, which together
represent a depth of 54.1 ft., significantly limits potential building depth.
With respect to the first
a) variance, the front yard setback is measured to the centrally located front
porch, which encroaches into the required front yard up to 3.51 ft. at the
northeast corner post.
With respect to the front
yard setback, the siting of the proposed dwelling would be similar to the
placement of the existing dwelling on the subject site, as well as neighbouring
properties.
The proposed design varies
the building massing to reflect the curved alignment of the front property line
and minimize the front yard encroachment. As a result, with the exception of
the small triangular areas of the front porch and the adjacent corners of the
dwelling (encroaching up to 1.44 ft.), the main body of the dwelling would be
set back at least 24.6 ft. In fact, the proposed setbacks to the northeast and
southeast corners of the residence are approximately 30 ft. and 26 ft.
respectively, well exceeding the minimum front yard setback requirement.
In summary, considering the
small scale of the front yard encroachment, which is minimally visible from the
adjacent residences, this variance would not create any impacts on neighbouring
properties and the existing streetscape.
With respect to the second
b) appeal, the principal building encroaches 9.75 ft. into the required rear
yard setback.
Although the existing
dwelling provides a rear yard setback that is somewhat larger than proposed, it
appears that the neighbouring properties would not be affected by the proposed
encroachment.
With respect to the
neighbouring residence to the south, the massing impacts of the rear yard
encroachment would be mitigated by the recessed configuration proposed at the
southwest corner of the dwelling. This 10 ft. deep corner area would be set
back 5 ft. at the ground floor and additional 4 ft. at the upper floor in
relation to the main face of the south elevation.
With respect to the
neighbouring residence to the west, although the proposed dwelling is slightly
closer than the existing dwelling, the various setbacks introduced at the rear
elevation as well as the stepping back of the upper floor on the side
elevations would help mitigate any impacts. With views predominantly oriented
to the northwest, and only few small windows featured on the east elevation,
the impacts on this residence would be further reduced. Currently, there is a
mature hedge along the shared rear property line, which provides affective
screening between the two properties. However, it is not clear if this hedge
would remain in the future.
With respect to outdoor
living space, a sizable rear yard area (over 2,000 sq. ft.) would remain on the
subject site.
In summary, considering the
challenging geometry of the site and the absence of any anticipated negative
impacts on the adjacent properties and the existing streetscape, this
Department does not object to the granting of the first a) and second b) appeal.
ADJACENT OWNER’S COMMENTS:
Correspondence
was received from residents at 7460 Pandora Drive in opposition to the back
yard setback variance due to; loss of privacy, increased noise, and decreased
property value.
Correspondence
was received from residents of 7255 Ridgeview Drive in opposition to the back
yard setback variance due to loss of; sunlight, view, privacy and property
value. They also expressed concern regarding massing.
Correspondence
was received from residents at 7247 Ridgeview Drive in opposition to the rear
yard setback. The author advised that the variances would affect site lines
and expressed concern that allowing the requested variances could be precedent
setting.
Correspondence
was received from residents at 7438 Pandora Drive advising that they would not
be directly impacted by the requested variances; however, they did express
concern regarding this becoming a precedent setting decision.
Correspondence
was received from residents at 7456 Pandora Drive expressing concern regarding
a loss of privacy and increased noise.
A second item
of correspondence was received from 7460 Pandora further advising they are
opposed to the back yard setback. The residents advised they are concerned
regarding loss of privacy, property value, damage to a cedar hedge and
retaining walls. They are also concerned that an allowance of the variance for
the rear yard setback would become precedent setting.
Residents of
7255 Ridgeview and a representative for 7460 Pandora appeared at the Board of Variance
in opposition to the proposed variances, reiterating the concerns expressed in
their written submissions, as well as the potential for this decision to become
precedent setting. The speakers advised they would be amiable to a revised
plan that would bring the home 10 feet closer to the front property line.
No further submissions were
received regarding this appeal.
|
MOVED BY Mr. NEMETH
SECONDED BY mr. dhatt
|
|
|
|
THAT based on the plans submitted
part (a) of this appeal be ALLOWED.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
MOVED BY Mr. NEMETH
SECONDED BY mr. pound
THAT based on the plans submitted
part (b) of this appeal be ALLOWED.
CARRIED
OPPOSED: Ms. Richter
|
Upon conclusion of this
appeal (approximately 7:35 p.m.), Mr. Clark returned to the Board of Variance
hearing and took his seat at the table.
|
(g)
|
APPEAL
NUMBER:
|
B.V. 6237
|
|
|
|
|
|
APPELLANT:
|
Hitesh
Neb
|
|
|
|
|
REGISTERED OWNER OF PROPERTY:
|
Crescent
Holdings Inc
|
|
|
|
|
CIVIC ADDRESS OF PROPERTY:
|
4679
Alpha Drive
|
|
|
|
|
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY:
|
Lot
39; DL 123: Plan NWP16792
|
|
|
|
|
APPEAL:
|
An appeal for the
relaxation of Sections 6.3.1, 110.6(2)(b), 110.7(a), 110.8, and 110.12(2) of
the Burnaby Zoning Bylaw which, if permitted would allow for the construction
of a new single family home at 4679 Alpha Drive. The following variances are
being requested:
a) The distance
between the principal building and the detached garage would be 5.60 feet
where a minimum distance of 14.8 feet is required;
b) The principal
building height would be 22.65 feet where a maximum height of 19.0 feet is
permitted;
c) The depth of the
principal building would be 57.27 feet where a maximum depth of 38.23 feet is
permitted;
d) The front yard
setback would be 16.39 feet to the foundation where a minimum front yard
setback of 24.9 feet is required based on front yard averaging. The roof
overhang would project 2.81 feet beyond the foundation; and,
e)
Retaining walls at the frontage of Alpha Drive with varying heights of up to
a maximum of 2.50 feet where no fence or other structures are permitted in
front of the face of the principal building facing the front yard. (Zone R10)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
APPELLANT’S SUBMISSION:
Hitesh Neb submitted an
application to allow for the construction of a new home at 4679 Alpha Drive.
Mr. Neb requested the variances due to the irregular lot shape and the slope of
the property.
Mr. Neb appeared before members of the
Board of Variance.
BURNABY PLANNING AND BUILDING
DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
The subject
property is located in the Brentwood Park area, in a mature single family R10
District neighbourhood that is characterized by low-scale single family
dwellings. The R10 District in this area was established through a
resident-initiated area rezoning process in order to control the form and
character of new development, including fences and other structures. This irregular interior
lot, which is roughly kite-shaped, is approximately 52 ft. deep along the
southwest (side) property line and has a frontage of approximately 115 ft. on
Alpha Drive to the southeast. Abutting the subject site to the southwest and
across the lane to the north are single family dwellings. Vehicular access to the site is
proposed to be relocated from Alpha Drive to the north lane. The site observes
a substantial downward slope of approximately 10 ft. in the north-south
direction.
A new single family dwelling with detached garage is
proposed for the subject site, for which five variances are requested.
The first a), third c) and
fourth d) appeals will be discussed first. Comments on the second b) and fifth
e) appeals will follow.
The first a)
appeal would permit a distance of 5.60 ft. from the accessory building to the
principal building, with further roof projections of 0.15 ft., where a minimum
distance of 14.8 ft. is required.
The Bylaw
requires a separation between buildings on the same lot to ensure that the
overall massing of the building does not have a negative impact on the
occupants of the buildings and neighbouring properties, as well as to provide
for sufficient outdoor living space.
The proposal locates the
detached garage and the principal building side by side along the north (side)
property line, with the garage placed right at the west (rear) property line. A
5.6 ft. wide pathway is proposed between the two structures, which leads to an
approximately 700 sq. ft. backyard area. Only small two windows, in a bedroom
and bathroom, would face the garage, so few impacts are expected on the future
occupants/users of the subject site. The garage would be aligned with the
detached garage on the adjacent property to the west and with the detached
garage directly across the lane to the north. Therefore, the reduced distance
between the two structures would not impact these neighbouring properties.
It could be argued that the
reduced distance between the two structures would affect views from the
neighbouring residence at 4572 Napier Street, across the lane to the north,
which the proposed principal building would fully overlap. However, a mature
hedge on the rear property line of this property provides extensive screening.
Further, the proposed dwelling provides the required side yard setback from the
north property line.
In view of the above, this
Department does not object
to the granting of this first a) appeal.
The third c) appeal is for a principal building depth of 57.27, with
further roof projections of 2.81 ft., where a maximum building depth of 38.23 ft.
is permitted.
The Bylaw’s intent in
limiting building depth is to prevent the creation of dwellings that present a
long imposing wall, such that the massing of the building impacts neighbouring
properties.
The building depth calculation is based
on the building depth as projected onto the lot depth, which is the line
joining the center points of the front and rear property lines. Due to the site
geometry, this line is angled in relation to these property lines and measures
only 84.97 ft. The siting of the proposed dwelling is also slightly rotated in
relation to the lot depth line. Measured along this line, the proposed
projected building depth is 57.27 ft., which exceeds the maximum permitted
building depth by 19.04 ft. It is noted that the existing building depth, as
constructed in 1957/60, is approximately 50.0 ft., which is legal non-conforming with
respect to current Zoning Bylaw requirements.
The proposed principal
building resembles a rough “L” in plan view, with the longer wing (17.97 ft.
wide by 55.93 ft. long) oriented in the east-west direction and the shorter
wing (23.29 ft. wide by 47.25 ft. long) oriented in the north-south direction.
Given this design, and the rotated orientation of the subject dwelling with respect to the
front property line, the proposal would not create a long “wall” effect as
viewed from the immediately adjacent property to the southwest and properties
across Alpha Drive to the southeast. With respect to the neighbouring
properties across the lane to the north, these properties front onto Napier
Street and observe generous rear yard setbacks (approximately 70 ft. deep). In
addition, the elevated position of these residences in relation to the subject
dwelling (the terrain continues ascending to the north) largely mitigates any massing
impacts.
Further, the unique site
geometry and orientation of the subject site creates design challenges and
limits the development options available on this site.
Given these
factors and the relatively low impact of the proposal on neighbouring properties, this
Department does not object to the granting of this third c) appeal.
The fourth d) appeal requests a front yard setback of
16.39 ft., measured to the foundation of the proposed single family dwelling,
with a further projection for roof eaves of 2.81 ft., where a minimum front
yard setback of 24.9 ft. is required from the Alpha Drive property line.
The intent of the Bylaw is to mitigate the massing
impacts of new buildings or structures on neighbouring properties and to
preserve a unified streetscape.
The proposed
front yard setback is measured to the foundation at the southeast corner of the
longer wing, which runs parallel to the north property line. Similarly, the
southeast corner of the shorter wing observes a slightly larger setback of
16.88 ft. Due to the rotated orientation of the proposed dwelling with respect to
the front property line and the proposed “L” shape, these distances
gradually increase up to approximately 28.5 ft. and 32.5 ft. at the outermost
(northeast and southwest) corners of the dwelling respectively, or to
approximately 34.5 ft. at the center of the dwelling where the two wings
connect. As a result, the front yard encroachment of up to 8.51 ft. is limited
to two small triangular areas at the southeast portions of the two wings. Most
of this area would appear as a one and a half storey form.
It is noted
that the current dwelling observes a front yard setback of approximately 23.5
ft., slightly less than the minimum required, and is legal non-conforming with
respect to
current Zoning Bylaw requirements.
With respect to
the neighbouring property to the west, considering the small scale of the front
yard encroachment and the generous distance of approximately 23 ft. to the
shared (west) side property lines, no massing impacts are expected on this
property. Similarly,
given the relatively minor nature of the variance, in combination with the
distant siting, the front yard encroachment would not be prominent from the
properties on the opposite side of Alpha Drive. With respect to the neighbouring
properties across the lane to the north, the encroachment areas would not be
visible due to the angled alignment of Alpha Drive, and would therefore have no
impacts. In
addition, the proposed dwelling would exceed the required front yard setback at
the side (north) property line.
In the broader
neighbourhood context, the proposed rotated placement of the subject dwelling
would not be out of the ordinary in the immediate context, in which many of the
neighbouring homes either front different streets or feature a staggered
alignment with adjacent homes.
However, given that the
encroaching portions of the proposed residence are relatively small, it would
be feasible to construct a dwelling that observes the required front yard
setback with only moderate changes to the proposed design. As such, while
recognizing the challenging geometry of the site and the absence of any
anticipated negative impacts on adjacent properties, this Department cannot
support the granting of this fourth d) variance.
The second b) appeal
proposes a building height of 22.65 ft. where a maximum height of 19.0 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 this case, the height
calculation is based on the building height base line, which is the imaginary
line joining the mid-points of the projected front and rear lines of the
building. This calculation method applies specifically to the R10 District and
is intended to accommodate sloped sites, such as the subject site. However, the
irregular geometry and skewed orientation of the subject site, combined with
the divergent direction of the slope, makes it difficult to meet this
requirement.
The proposed height encroachment
of up to 3.65 ft. extends from approximately 1.0 ft. below the top of the
window line at the upper storey to the top of the flat roof above, when viewed
from the rear (west) elevation. The proposed encroachment slightly increases,
to approximately 1.5 ft. below the top of the window line when viewed from the
front property line. It is difficult to establish the exact extent of the
encroachment, given the proposed rotated siting of the dwelling in relation to
the front property line in combination with the angled alignment of the front
and rear property lines.
The proposed 17.93 ft. wide by
51.22 ft. long upper storey extends over the longer wing only, which runs
parallel to the north side property line. The proposed area of encroachment at
the upper floor is set back approximately 26 ft. from the rear (west) property
line. Due to the angled alignment of the front property line, the proposed area
of encroachment is set back varying distances, from approximately 22.5 ft. at
the southeast corner to over 50 ft. at the opposite southwest corner. These
measurements exclude the proposed large roof overhangs, facing to the south,
which project into these setbacks. Considering the generous setbacks, the
excess height would have relatively small impacts on views from the
neighbouring properties across Alpha Drive to the southeast and the adjacent
property to the west. When viewed from the properties across the lane to the
north, the proposed dwelling would appear within the 19 ft. height envelope,
given the grades along the north property line.
Given that this request
would not jeopardize the low-scale character of the streetscape, this
Department does not object to the granting of the second b) variance.
The fifth e) appeal is to
permit retaining walls at the Alpha Drive frontage where no fence or other
structure is permitted in front of the face of the principal building facing
the front yard.
The intent of the R10
District is to maintain the existing development pattern of the neighbourhood,
which generally contains open lawns and a minimum of fencing. The R10 zone
was created in response to the residents’ desire to ensure that all new
development recognized the unique R10 architectural and landscape context. The
R10 streetscape is characterized by low building profiles, uniform front yards,
and the absence of fences.
Various options
exist with respect to sloping front yards: a downward slope can be gradually
distributed over the yard area, or, if a flatter area is desired, a small berm
can be introduced at the outer edge. This is a common front yard edge treatment
that is exhibited by the majority of properties in this neighbourhood. However,
the subject site does not exhibit sufficient depth to accommodate the
substantial grade difference, particularly at its narrowest eastern part.
In this case,
there are existing retaining walls on the subject property, along the front
property line and to the rear of the lot, which were most likely built in 1957,
when the existing dwelling was constructed. The retaining wall along the front
property line would be retained and new retaining walls are proposed to
facilitate an access walkway and windows on the main and lower floor of the
proposed dwelling. These retaining walls would run at angle to the front property
line, similar to the angled placement of the proposed dwelling, and would be up
to 2.5 ft. high, gradually “sinking’ into the eastern portion of the site.
Although these
walls are neither high nor prominent, permitting a fence or other structure in
the front yard of an R10 District, where it is expressly prohibited, is a major
variance in that it is a complete reversal of the bylaw provision that would
defeat the intent of the bylaw. Moreover, in the location proposed, these walls
appear to be a design choice rather than a necessity.
In view of the above, this
Department cannot support
the granting of this fifth e) appeal.
ADJACENT OWNER’S COMMENTS:
Correspondence
was received from residents at 4578 Napier Street in opposition to this
appeal. The residents stated that the building would create a mass blocking
their view corridor. The writers expressed concern regarding; loss of privacy,
increased noise, loss of the concept and intent of the R10 zoning and well as
an unestablished hardship.
Correspondence
was received from residents of 4696 Alpha Drive expressing concern regarding
the loss of front yard continuity and potential loss of a cherry blossom tree
in the front yard.
Correspondence
was received from residents at 4566 Napier Street in opposition to the
variances being requested.
Correspondence
was received from residents of 4690 Alpha Drive in opposition of the requested
variances. The writers expressed concerns regarding the loss of view,
sunlight, environmental impacts and the magnitude of the variances being
requested.
Residents of
4578 Napier Street appeared before the members of the Board in opposition of
this appeal. In addition to their original written submission, they also
provided a presentation demonstrating the impacts to their home should the
proposed variances be granted.
Residents of
4673 Alpha Drive appeared regarding their opposition and concerns to the
proposed variances. The speakers advised that allowing changes to the
established R10 zoning would change the character of the neighbourhood. The
variances would also create a mass in height and width, resulting in loss of
sunlight.
Residents of
4551Alpha Street appeared in opposition to the proposed variances. The
speakers advised that allowing changes to the R10 zoning would change the
character of the neighbourhood.
A resident of
4672 Alpha appeared in opposition to the proposed variances. The resident
advised that allowing these variances would change the R10 character of the
neighbourhood and felt it was a design choice and not a hardship.
No
further submissions were received.
|
MOVED BY Mr. clark
SECONDED BY mr. nemeth
|
|
|
|
THAT based on the plans submitted
part (a) of this appeal be ALLOWED.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
|
|
MOVED BY Mr. clark
SECONDED BY mr. dhatt
|
|
|
|
THAT based on the plans submitted
part (b) of this appeal be DENIED.
CARRIED
OPPOSED: Mr. Pound
|
|
MOVED BY Mr. clark
SECONDED BY mr. NEMETH
|
|
|
|
THAT based on the plans submitted
part (c) of this appeal be ALLOWED.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
|
|
MOVED BY Mr. clark
SECONDED BY mr. NEMETH
|
|
|
|
THAT based on the plans submitted
part (d) of this appeal be DENIED.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
|
|
MOVED BY Mr. clarke
SECONDED BY mr. NEMETH
|
|
|
|
THAT based on the plans submitted
part (c) of this appeal be DENIED.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
|
|
(h)
|
APPEAL
NUMBER:
|
B.V. 6238
|
|
|
|
|
|
APPELLANT:
|
Vikram
Tiku
|
|
|
|
|
REGISTERED OWNER OF PROPERTY:
|
Nimira
Bapoo
|
|
|
|
|
CIVIC ADDRESS OF PROPERTY:
|
3913
Nithsdale Street
|
|
|
|
|
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY:
|
Lot
11; DL 68; Plan NWP11923
|
|
|
|
|
APPEAL:
|
An
appeal for the relaxation of the Section 105.6(1)(b) of the Burnaby Zoning
Bylaw which, if permitted, would allow for the construction of a new single
family home at 3913 Nithsdale Street. The principal building height, measured
from the rear average elevation would be 33.0 feet where the maximum building
height of 24.3 feet is permitted. The principal building height, measured
from the front average elevation would be 23.0 feet. (Zone R5)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
APPELLANT’S SUBMISSION:
Vikram Tiku submitted an application
to allow for the construction of a new home at 3913 Nithsdale Street.
Mr. Tiku and Mr. Bapoo appeared before
members of the Board of Variance.
BURNABY PLANNING AND BUILDING
DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
The
subject site, which is zoned R5 Residential District, is located in the
Cascades-Schou neighbourhood, in which the age and condition of single and two
family dwellings vary. The majority of dwellings surrounding the subject site
consist of single family dwellings built in early 1950’s. This interior
lot, approximately 50.0 ft. wide and 120 ft. deep, fronts onto the northwest
side of Nithsdale Street. Immediately to the southwest and northeast of the
subject site are single family dwellings. Across the lane to the northwest is
Avondale Park.
Vehicle access to the site is provided via the rear
lane. The site observes a
downward slope of approximately 15 ft. from the front to the rear.
The subject
site is proposed to be redeveloped with a new single family dwelling with
attached garage.
The appeal is for a
building height of 33.00 ft., measured from the rear 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 impacts of new buildings or structures on neighbouring
properties.
The proposed dwelling would
observe a front elevation height of 23.0 ft. from the Nithsdale Street property line, which is
1.3 ft. less than the allowed maximum height. Therefore, this proposal would
not impact the existing streetscape and the properties directly across Nithsdale Street to the
south, which are at substantially higher elevations.
The requested variance is
for the rear elevation height. In this case, the height calculation is based on
the proposed average grade at the outermost face of the rear elevation. This
grade is slightly lower than existing average grade (by 0.75 ft.). A
substantial grade difference from the front to the rear of the subject site
partly contributes to the excess height of the rear elevation. The proposed
height encroachment of 8.7 ft. extends from approximately 2 ft. above the floor
level of the entire upper storey to the top of the flat roof above. The rear
elevation would appear as a three storey form, although the proposed setbacks
of the main and upper floor in relation to the cellar level would help to
mitigate, to a degree, this appearance. The northeast corner of the proposed
dwelling would be set back approximately 11 ft. at the main floor and an
additional 3 ft. at the upper floor in relation to the cellar level. The
northwest corner would be set back approximately 16 ft. at the main floor and
15 ft. at the upper floor respectively. Considering the stepped design and the
proposed siting of the subject dwelling, over 40 ft. from the rear property
line, the excess height would not significantly impact views from the park
playground area directly across the lane to the north.
When viewed from the
southwest and northeast side property lines, the upper rear portions of the
side elevations, “triangular” in shape due to the nature of the sloping
terrain, would be overheight. These portions of the upper floor are
approximately 3.5 ft. and 4.0 ft. overheight at the northwest and northeast
corners respectively, if natural grades are considered. (The proposed grade at
the rear elevation is approximately 0.75 ft. lower.)
The siting of the proposed
dwelling would bring the subject dwelling approximately 25 ft. further into the
rear yard than the main body of the existing dwelling on the subject site,
which is currently aligned with the neighbouring residences to the southwest
and northeast. These neighbouring residences feature large rear decks. The
portions of the proposed dwelling where the excess height occurs would be
highly visible from these decks. Therefore, there is a concern that this
variance would create negative massing impacts on the adjacent neighbours to
either side.
Further, although the
sloping terrain provides some grounds for hardship, it appears that this
variance request is also the result of a design choice. For example, the 11.5 ft. clear
height (from floor to ceiling) of the main floor and the 9 ft. clear height of
the cellar and upper floor could be reduced to lessen the required variance.
In summary, since the
proposed height would impact neighbouring properties to the southwest and
northeast, and simple
design adjustments could be made to reduce the height of the building, this
Department cannot support the granting of this appeal.
ADJACENT
OWNER’S COMMENTS:
Correspondence
was received from residents at 3892 Nithsdale Street in opposition to the
requested variance. The writer expressed concern regarding the loss of view
and characteristic of the neighbourhood.
Correspondence
was received from 3932 Nithsdale, 3906 Nithsdale and 3921 Nithsdale advising
they have no objections to the proposed variances.
No further
submissions were received regarding this appeal.
|
MOVED BY Mr. dhatt
SECONDED BY mr. nemeth
|
|
|
|
THAT based on the plans submitted
this appeal be ALLOWED.
CARRIED
OPPOSED: Mr. Nemeth
|
|
4.
|
NEW BUSINESS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No
items of new business were brought forward at this time.
|
|
MOVED BY: mr. nemeth
SECONDED BY: MR. DHATT
|
|
|
|
THAT
this Hearing do now adjourn.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
|
The
Hearing adjourned at 8:50 p.m.
|
|
|
|
|
________________________
|
|
|
Ms.
C. Richter, Chair
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
________________________
|
|
|
Mr.
G. Clark
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
________________________
|
|
|
Mr.
R. Dhatt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
________________________
|
|
|
Mr.
S. Nemeth
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
________________________
|
________________________
|
|
Ms.
E. Prior
ADMINISTRATIVE
OFFICER
|
Mr.
B. Pound
|