|
|
|
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, 2015 June 04 at 1:00 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PRESENT:
|
Ms.
C. Richter, Chair
Mr.
B. Bharaj
Mr.
G. Clark
Mr.
S. Nemeth
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ABSENT:
|
Mr.
B. Pound
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
STAFF:
|
Ms.
M. Malysz, Planning Department Representative
Mr.
S. Cleave, Deputy City Clerk
|
|
|
The
Secretary called the Hearing to order at 1:06 p.m.
|
|
MOVED BY Mr. B. BHARAJ:
SECONDED BY Mr S. NEMETH:
|
|
|
|
THAT the Minutes of the Hearing of
the Burnaby Board of Variance held on 2015 May 07 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. 6165
|
|
|
|
|
|
APPELLANT:
|
Biagio
Gargiulo
|
|
|
|
|
REGISTERED
OWNER OF PROPERTY:
|
Annette
and Biagio Gargiulo
|
|
|
|
|
CIVIC
ADDRESS OF PROPERTY:
|
6497 Parkcrest Drive
|
|
|
|
|
LEGAL
DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY:
|
Lot
10; District Lot 130; Plan 12119
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
APPEAL:
|
An appeal for the relaxation of
Sections 6.13(1)(a) and 6.13(1)(b) of the Burnaby Zoning Bylaw which, if
permitted will allow for construction of a new single family home at 6497
Parkcrest Drive. The following variances are being requested:
a) a structure along the vision
clearance line facing Parkcrest Drive with varying heights up to a maximum of
5.13 feet where the maximum permitted height along the vision clearance lines
is 3.28 feet; and
b) a structure along the vision
clearance line facing Kensington Avenue with varying heights up to a maximum
of 4.0 feet where the maximum permitted height along the vision clearance
lines is 3.28 feet; and
c) a structure along the vision
clearance line facing the lane with varying heights up to a maximum of 4.04
feet where the maximum permitted height along the vision clearance lines is
3.28 feet; and
d) a structure along the vision
clearance line facing Kensington Avenue with varying heights up to a maximum
of 4.69 feet where the maximum permitted height along the vision clearance
lines is 3.28 feet.(Zone R-2)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
APPELLANT'S
SUBMISSION:
Mr. Gargiulo submitted an
application for relaxation of the Burnaby Zoning Bylaw to allow for the
construction of fences/walls necessary for the safety of his family.
Mr. Gargiulo appeared before members of the Board
of Variance at the Hearing.
BURNABY
PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENTS COMMENT:
The subject
site, zoned R2 Residential District, is located in the Parkcrest-Aubrey
neighbourhood in which the age and condition of single family dwellings vary.
This corner lot, approximately 69.5 ft. wide and 120 ft. long, fronts onto
the north side of Parkcrest Drive and flanks Kensington Avenue to the east.
Abutting the subject site to the west, south (across Parkcrest Drive) and
east (across Kensington Avenue) are single family dwellings. Vehicular access
to the site is provided from the lane to the north. The site observes a
downward slope of approximately 8.4 ft. in the northeast-southwest direction.
Construction of a new single family dwelling on the lot, including detached
garage, is in its final stages with a provisional occupancy permit issued on
2015 April 15. The two requested variances are related to the partially constructed
fences/walls along the south (Parkcrest Drive), east (Kensington Avenue) and
north (lane) property lines.
The first a)
and the second b) appeal is to allow the partially constructed fences/walls
to encroach into the vision clearance area at the intersection of Parkcrest
Drive and Kensington Avenue, with a varying height of up to 5.13 ft. at the
Parkcrest Drive property line and up to 4.0 ft. at the Kensington Avenue
property line, where the maximum height of 3.28 ft. is permitted.
The third c)
and fourth d) appeal is to allow the partially constructed fences/walls to
encroach into the vision clearance area at the intersection of Kensington
Avenue and the lane, with a varying height of up to 4.04 ft. at the lane
property line and up to 4.69 ft. at the Kensington Drive property line, where
the maximum height of 3.28 ft. is permitted.
The Bylaw's
intent in providing vision clearance is to facilitate vehicular, pedestrian
and cyclist safety at street and lane intersections. The vision clearance is
a triangular area formed by the property lines and a line joining two points
along the property lines. In reference to the first a) and the second b)
appeal, the joining line must be 29.53 ft. distant from the intersection of
the streets. In reference to the third c) and fourth d) appeal, the joining
line must be 19.69 ft. distant from the intersection of the street and the
lane.
In both
cases, the vision clearance areas in the southeast and northeast corners are
at the higher side of the subject site. To address the sloping terrain, the
picket fences/walls are proposed in stepped sections separated by decorative
pilaster elements, approximately 0.5 ft. higher than the fencing. This
stepped design reflects an effort to address vision clearance requirements in
the context of development needs and site topography. The decorative 1 ft. by
1 ft. concrete pilasters and associated low concrete retaining walls are
already built. The proposed fencing, which consists of aluminum vertical
pickets spaced approximately 0.42 ft. apart, is not yet constructed.
With respect
to the first a) and the second b) variance, when viewed from Kensington
Avenue, only the top portions of the first three decorative pilasters at the
southeast corner of the site, and slivers of the intervening fencing,
encroach into the vision clearance zone; the maximum height encroachment is
0.72 ft. When viewed from Parkcrest Drive, only the top areas of the first
four decorative pilasters at the southeast corner of the site, and some upper
portions of the fencing, encroach into the vision clearance zone; the maximum
height of these pilasters is 5.13 ft., which represents a 1.85 ft. height
encroachment. The minimal massing of the over height portions of the
structure, which consists primarily of widely space pilasters, reduces the
impacts of this vision clearance encroachment. Further, it is noted that
there is a stop sign for east bound traffic on the south side of Parkcrest
Drive, which would help to mitigate safety concerns with respect to the
resultant minor reduction in the sightlines to Kensington Avenue and its
associated sidewalks.
With respect
to the third c) and fourth d) variance, when viewed from Kensington Avenue,
again, only the top portions of the first three decorative pilasters at the
northeast corner of the site, and minor portions of the fencing, encroach
into the vision clearance zone; the maximum height encroachment at this
corner is 1.41 ft. When viewed from the lane, the top areas of three
decorative pilasters at the northeast corner of the site, and minor portions
of the fencing, encroach into the vision clearance zone; with a maximum
height encroachment of 0.76 ft. As noted above, the minimal massing of the over
height portions of the structure are unlikely to significantly reduce
sightlines and traffic safety.
In summary, most of the fence /wall
portions would observe heights no greater than 3.28 ft. and the over height
portions of the structure would have little impact on sightlines and traffic
safety. Therefore, this Department does not object to the granting of all
four variances.
ADJACENT
OWNER'S COMMENTS:
No
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.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
MOVED BY Mr. b. BHARAJ:
SECONDED BY MR. S. NEMETH:
THAT based on the plans
submitted part (b) of this appeal be ALLOWED.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
MOVED BY Mr. b. BHARAJ:
SECONDED BY MR. S. NEMETH:
THAT based on the plans
submitted part (c) of this appeal be ALLOWED.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
MOVED BY Mr. b. BHARAJ:
SECONDED BY MR. S. NEMETH:
THAT based on the plans
submitted part (d) of this appeal be ALLOWED.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(b)
|
APPEAL
NUMBER:
|
B.V. 6166
|
|
|
|
|
|
APPELLANT:
|
Lev
Keselman
|
|
|
|
|
REGISTERED
OWNER OF PROPERTY:
|
Lev
Keselman and Tammy Chu
|
|
|
|
|
CIVIC
ADDRESS OF PROPERTY:
|
7842 Kerrywood Crescent
|
|
|
|
|
|
LEGAL
DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY:
|
Lot
28; District Lot 42; Plan 23102
|
|
|
|
|
APPEAL:
|
An appeal for the relaxation of
Sections 101.8 and 101.9(1) of the Burnaby Zoning Bylaw which, if permitted,
will allow for the construction of a new single family home at 7842 Kerrywood
Crescent. The following variances are being requested:
a) a front yard setback of 16.54
feet to the foundation where a minimum front yard setback of 31.03 feet is
required based on front yard averaging. The roof overhang will be 1.0 feet
beyond the foundation; and
b) a side yard setback of 6.13 feet
to the foundation where a minimum side yard setback of 7.9 feet is
required.(Zone R-1)
|
|
APPELLANT'S SUBMISSION:
Les Keselman and Tammy
Chu submitted an application for
relaxation of the Burnaby Zoning Bylaw to allow for construction of their new
home.
Mr. Keselman appeared before members of the Board
of Variance at the Hearing.
BURNABY PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENTS COMMENT:
The subject site, zoned
R1 Residential District, is located in a stable single-family neighbourhood
in the Government Road area. This irregular corner lot, approximately 140 ft.
wide (along the west property line) and 100 ft. long (along the north property
line) fronts onto Kerrywood Crescent to the west and flanks the undeveloped
Kentwood Street right of way to the north. Single family dwellings abut the
subject site to the south and across Kerrywood Crescent to the west. Two
large R1 District properties, which are currently vacant, abut the subject
site to the east and across the Kentwood Street right of way to the north.
Vehicular access to the subject site is provided from Kerrywood Crescent;
there is no lane access.
Eagle Creek transverses
the rear portion of this lot. As such, this proposal is subject to Section
6.23 of the Zoning Bylaw (Streamside Protection and Enhancement Areas) and is
currently in a review/approval process by Environmental Review Committee
(ERC). A Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District (GVS&DD)
easement, which generally follows the creek alignment, occupies almost half
of the subject lot. With the exception of this easement area, which contains
the creek ravine, the remainder of the site is relatively flat with an approximately
5 ft. downward slope to the rear. It is noted that the location of the creek
and associated easement significantly impact the area available for
development and represent a substantial hardship.
This site was the subject
of a successful appeal to the Board on at least two occasions. In 1968, two
relaxations were allowed to construct a dwelling observing a minimum front
yard setback of 20 ft. and a minimum south side yard setback of 6 ft. In
1994, a variance was allowed to construct an addition to the existing
dwelling observing a minimum front yard setback of 22 ft., where a minimum
front yard setback of 40.45 ft. was required.
A new single family
dwelling with an attached garage is proposed for the subject site, for which
two variances are requested. These variances are related to front yard
setback and side yard setback requirements.
The first a) appeal
requests a front
yard setback of 16.54 ft., measured to the
proposed single family
dwelling, with a further projection for roof eaves of 1.0 ft., where
front yard averaging requires a minimum setback of 31.03 ft.
The second b) appeal
would permit a side yard setback of 6.13 ft. from the south property line to
the proposed single family dwelling, with a further projection for roof eaves
of up to 2.5 ft., where a minimum side yard setback of 7.9 ft. is required.
With respect to the first
a) appeal, 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 setbacks of the two
dwellings at 7832 and 7822 Kerrywood Crescent south of the subject site.
These front yards are 29.35 ft. and 32.71ft., respectively. The proposed
front yard setback is measured to a small portion of the floor that
cantilevers out 2.92 ft. from a central part of the building face. The
remainder of the dwelling is proposed to be set back further from this face
by 2.92 ft. at the southwest portion and 6.92 ft. at the northwest portion,
resulting in setbacks of 19.46 ft. and 23.46 ft. respectively.
The proposed siting would
place the subject dwelling 12.81 ft. in front of the neighbouring dwelling to
the south, or 9.98 ft. in front if the southwest corner is considered;
however, considering that this siting is consistent with the placement of the
current dwelling, which is set back approximately 20 ft. from the front
property line, the requested reduced front yard setback would not change the
existing horizontal massing relation. The portion of the dwelling that
encroaches into the front yard setback, although it is in a two storey form,
would have a limited impact on the neighbouring dwelling to the south, as
only one small window facing this residence is proposed at the upper floor.
It should be noted that this portion of the proposed dwelling does not
encroach into the required south side yard setback, which is the subject of
the second variance, as it is placed further away from the south property
line.
Similarly, the
neighbouring property across Kerrywood Crescent to the west, oriented primary
to Kentwood Street to the north and bordered by an approximately 6 ft. high
concrete block wall at its side (east) property line, would be minimally
affected. The proposed siting would not affect distant neighbouring
residences to the northwest across Kentwood Street.
With regard to the
broader neighbourhood context, the subject block is crescent shaped and as
such the frontage line is not strongly defined. In addition, the proposed
siting of the new dwelling, with the exception of the small staircase
projection, is consistent with the placement of the current residence. As
such, the proposed residence fits within the existing streetscape.
It is also noted that the
neighbouring properties to the south are less impacted by Eagle Creek, which
is located a greater distance from their front lot lines.
With respect to the
second b) appeal, the intent of the Bylaw is to mitigate the impact of
building massing on neighbouring properties.
In this case, the
existing dwelling observes a south side yard setback of 5.8 ft., and is
legal-non-conforming with respect to the minimum 7.9 ft. side yard setback
requirement.
As mentioned under the
first a) appeal, the siting of the proposed single family dwelling is similar
to the location of the existing dwelling. Further, the proposed side yard
encroachment area is limited to a thin wedge, approximately 2.1 ft. deep at
the southeast rear corner of the proposed dwelling, and decreasing to zero in
approximately 31 ft., at a point 16 ft. to the rear of the front corner of
the house. The front corner of the proposed house observes a side yard
setback of 9.55 ft. The proposed encroachment area directly overlaps with the
neighbouring dwelling to the south, which observes a side yard setback of
approximately 5.0 ft.
Considering the
negligible scale of encroachment and the fact that there are only small high
windows proposed on the overlapping portion of the south elevation, the
proposed side yard encroachment is unlikely to create any negative impacts on
the neighbouring residence to the south.
In view of the above, and
since there is a significant hardship present, this Department does not
object to the granting of this first a) and second b) variances.
ADJACENT OWNER'S COMMENTS:
No correspondence was received
regarding this appeal.
DECISION:
|
|
MOVED BY Mr. S. NEMETH:
SECONDED BY MR. B. BHARAJ:
|
|
|
|
THAT
based on the plans submitted part (a) of this appeal be ALLOWED.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
MOVED BY Mr. S. NEMETH:
SECONDED BY MR. B. BHARAJ:
THAT based on the plans submitted part
(b) of this appeal be ALLOWED.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
|
(c)
|
APPEAL
NUMBER:
|
B.V. 6167
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
APPELLANT:
|
Ed
Piendl
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
REGISTERED
OWNER OF PROPERTY:
|
684584
BC LTD
|
|
|
|
|
|
CIVIC
ADDRESS OF PROPERTY:
|
3777 Keith Street
|
|
|
|
|
LEGAL
DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY:
|
Lot
12; District Lot 175; Plan 17608
|
|
|
|
|
APPEAL:
|
An appeal for exemption from Section
911 (5) of the Local Government Act to allow for consolidation of 3777 and
3790 Keith Street, structural additions and alterations to the existing legal
non-conforming industrial building and associated parking, loading and
landscape revisions.(Zone M-5)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
APPELLANT'S
SUBMISSION:
Ed and Leanne Piendl submitted an application for exemption
from Section 911(5) of the Local Government Act to allow for reconstruction of
an industrial building damaged by fire.
Ed Piendl and his architect appeared before members of the Board
of Variance at the Hearing.
BURNABY
PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENTS COMMENT:
The subject site is located
in the Big Bend area, in which the age and conditions of buildings vary, as new
business centre oriented developments are built around existing older
industrial properties and single family lots.
The subject property, which
was created in May 2015 by consolidating two existing lots, is split-zoned. The
narrower northern portion of the site is zoned R2 Residential District and the
wider southern portion is zoned M5 Light Industrial District. In general, the
R2 District is intended for medium density single family dwellings and the M5
District is intended for high standard industrial and business centre
developments that can be located in closed proximity to residential areas with
a minimum of conflict. According to the Official Community Plan, the R2 zoned
portion of the subject site is designated for a future Park and Public use (as
a continuation of Boundary Creek Ravine Park) and the M5 zoned portion is
designated for a future Big Bend Business Centre use.
This irregular interior
through lot, approximately 214 ft. wide at its widest point and 408 ft. deep,
fronts onto Keith Street to the south and Marine Drive to the north. Vehicle
access is provided from Keith Street. Across Keith Street to the south are
industrial developments, containing primarily food wholesaling and warehouse
uses. To the north of the subject property, across Marine Drive, is Boundary
Creek Ravine Park. To the west, the southern portion of the subject site is
bordered by an industrial property containing a sign manufacturer and the
northern portion of the property is adjacent to a single family residence.
These two properties are separated from each other by an unopened lane right of
way. This undeveloped lane right of way runs along the northern edge of the
southern portion of the subject site and stops at the point where the subject
site narrows. To the east, the subject site is bordered by a split-zoned lot
with a single family dwelling in the northern portion (zoned R2) and unlicensed
industrial activity, consisting of a truck and other material storage, in the
southern portion (zoned M5). It is noted that the 15 ft. wide private easement
to allow access and deposition of fill, indicated on the provided survey
located along the east side property line, has expired.
The site observes a
substantial downward slope of approximately 44 ft. from the north to the south.
A ravine containing Boundary Creek traverses the site from the northwest corner
to the southeast corner. It is noted that the subject proposal is currently
under review by the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) with respect to stream
protection setbacks and conditions.
The subject property is
improved with a two storey industrial building and related accessory storage
buildings and structures. The industrial building contains a seafood processing
plant on the ground floor and associated offices on the upper floor. The
seafood processing use is a legal non-conforming use.
Based on City records, a
brief history of the development on the subject site is as follows: the
industrial building was built originally in 1957 and further improved with
additions in 1961 and 1965 to accommodate processing of fish eggs for sports
fishing bait. In 1966, a second floor was added to accommodate offices and in
1977, washroom facilities were added to the ground floor. In 1973, further
expansion of the fish processing plant, in the form of storage area and freezer
room additions, was granted through a successful appeal to the Board (BV#738)
and subject to consolidation of the two subject lots which was recently
completed. In 1992, the addition of two temporary freezer buildings, for a
period of two years, was permitted through a successful appeal to the Board
(BV#3799). Subsequently, the property was further improved with additions to
the principal building and new accessory buildings and structures without the
benefit of a building permit, which became apparent following a fire incident
in October 2014. The additions to the principal building are the subject of
this appeal. With the exception of one accessory building that is proposed to
be relocated, all accessory buildings and structures, are to be removed, and
are therefore not included in this appeal.
The appeal is to allow structural additions and alterations
in a building containing an existing legal non-conforming use (fish processing
plant).
The Local Government Act
prohibits a structural alteration or addition to a building or other structure
while the non-conforming use is continued, except as permitted by a Board of
Variance under Section 901(2).
Specifically, the following
structural additions and
alterations are proposed:
·
Relocation
of the existing 20.25 ft. wide by 44.25 ft. long accessory storage building to
the northeast corner of the existing industrial building;
·
Retention
of the existing 17.5 ft. wide by 35.5 ft. long cooler #2 (originally permitted
as a temporary building in 1992 for a period of two years) immediately west of
the proposed accessory storage building noted above;
·
Retention
of the existing 19.5 ft. wide by 16.5 ft. long cooler #3 and 10.5 ft. wide by
32.5 ft. long refrigerated trailer addition to the southeast corner of the
existing industrial building; and
·
Addition
of a new electrical room (within the existing area) and new 9.5 ft. wide by 12
ft. long compressor enclosure immediately west of cooler/freezer addition in
the front of the industrial building.
These structural additions and alterations
constitute major extension to the existing legal non-conforming use. As mentioned above, this
property was before the Board on two previous occasions. As both cases related
to expansion of the processing plant operation, this Department did not support
the appeals. As the use of the property continues to enjoy a legal
non-conforming status, the purpose of the current proposal is to further expand
the processing plant operation and legalize a number of unauthorized structural
additions and alterations.
While the existing legal
non-conforming use is permitted to remain in operation, this Department must
oppose any further expansion of the facility. When the processing of fish
products and abattoirs was deleted as a permitted use in the Zoning Bylaw, it was
expected that existing uses of this sort would be removed through time. To
permit the proposed expansion would strengthen the economic viability of the
non-conforming use and reduce the possibility of its removal at any time in the
near future.
In view of the above, this
Department objects to the granting of this variance.
ADJACENT OWNER'S COMMENTS:
No correspondence was
received regarding this appeal.
DECISION:
MOVED BY MR. S. NEMETH:
SECONDED BY MR. G. CLARK:
“THAT based on the plans submitted
this appeal for exemption from Section 911(5) of the Local Government Act be
ALLOWED.”
CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY
|
(d)
|
APPEAL
NUMBER:
|
B.V. 6168
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
APPELLANT:
|
Hijran
Shawkat
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
REGISTERED
OWNER OF PROPERTY:
|
Mohammad
N. Rahimyar, Mohammad D. Rahimyar and Mohammad I. Rahimyar
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CIVIC
ADDRESS OF PROPERTY:
|
6953 Kingsway
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LEGAL
DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY:
|
Lot
16; District Lot 95; Plan 7592
|
|
|
|
|
|
APPEAL:
|
An appeal for exemption from Section
911 (5) of the Local Government Act to allow for exterior and interior
structural alterations to the existing legal non-conforming single family
dwelling at 6953 Kingsway. (Zone C-4)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
APPELLANT'S
SUBMISSION:
Hirjan Shawkat submitted an application for exemption
from Section 911(5) of the Local Government Act to allow for exterior and
interior structural alterations to his client’s home, including a closet for
the furnace and a stair to connect the main floor to the basement.
Mr. Shawkat appeared before members of the Board
of Variance at the Hearing.
BURNABY
PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENTS COMMENT:
The subject site is located
in the Richmond Park 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 33 ft. in width and
103 ft. in depth. This interior site fronts onto the north side of Kingsway and
takes vehicle access from a rear lane. There is a single family dwelling to the
west and an office building containing a dental clinic to the east of the
subject site. Across the lane to the north is a townhouse complex. The site
observes a substantial downward slope of approximately 11 ft. from the rear to
the front.
The subject property is
improved with a two storey residential building and a two storey commercial
building. The residential building contains a single family dwelling which is a
legal non-conforming use.
The age of the subject
buildings is unknown; however, an aerial photograph from 1965 indicates that
both buildings existed at that time. In 1960, a detached carport was permitted
in the rear yard (this was demolished sometime between 2004 and 2006). In 1964,
construction of a recreational room in the basement of the residential building
was the subject of a successful appeal to the Board. In 1966, the Board also
permitted a second storey office addition to the commercial building. Recently,
further improvements were made to the residential building without the benefit
of a building permit; these improvements are the subject of this appeal.
The appeal is to allow
exterior and interior structural
alterations to an existing legal non-conforming single family dwelling.
The Local Government Act
prohibits a structural alteration or addition to a building or other structure
containing a non-conforming use, except as permitted by a Board of Variance
under Section 901(2).
The proposed exterior and
interior structural
alterations include:
relocation of an exterior door and addition of a ramp at the rear elevation;
renovation of the existing front and rear porch to meet BC Building Code
regulations; relocation of an internal stair connection; and addition of a new
furnace closet.
The applicant’s initial
intent was to convert the basement of the single family dwelling into a
commercial storage area. However, this proposal failed to meet BC Building Code
requirements. The current proposal is to legalize the proposed exterior and
interior alterations which have been partially constructed and which will
permit the basement to be restored to residential use, specifically as a
fitness room for the residents of the house.
The above noted exterior
and interior alterations have no negative impacts on neighbouring properties
and do not increase the intensity of use on the subject site; rather, the
proposal is an attempt to reestablish the previous use and condition of the
site prior to the recent unauthorized improvements.
In view of the above, this
Department does not object to the granting of this appeal.
ADJACENT OWNER'S COMMENTS:
A letter was received from Mrs.
Patricia Grace, 6254 Buckingham Drive, Burnaby expressing no objection to the
renovation project provided her concerns regarding rats and mice and the putrid
smell from garbage bins are rectified.
No further submissions were
received regarding this appeal.
DECISION:
MOVED BY MR. B. BHARAJ:
SECONDED BY MR. S. NEMETH:
“THAT based on the plans submitted
this appeal for exemption from Section 911(5) of the Local Government Act be
ALLOWED.”
CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY
|
(e)
|
APPEAL
NUMBER:
|
B.V. 6169
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
APPELLANT:
|
Karmjit
Sanghera
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
REGISTERED
OWNER OF PROPERTY:
|
Karmjit
Sanghera
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CIVIC
ADDRESS OF PROPERTY:
|
3785 Godwin Avenue
|
|
|
|
|
|
LEGAL
DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY:
|
Lot
B; District Lot 76; Plan 70205
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
APPEAL:
|
An appeal for the relaxation of
Sections 6.3.1, 6.6(2)(c) and 6.6(2)(d) of the Burnaby Zoning Bylaw which, if
permitted, will allow for the construction of a new two family home with a
detached garage at 3785 Godwin Avenue. The following variances are being
requested:
a) a distance between the principal
building and detached garage of 8.25 feet where a minimum distance of 14.8
feet is required;
b) a width of the detached garage of
22.5 feet where a maximum width of the detached garage of 22.0 feet is
permitted; and
c)
a setback between the detached garage and west property line of 2.5 feet
where a minimum distance of 3.94 feet is required. (Zone R-12)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
APPELLANT'S
SUBMISSION:
Karmjit Sanghera submitted an application for
relaxation of the Burnaby Zoning Bylaw to allow for construction of his new
duplex and garage.
Mr. Sanghera appeared before members of the Board
of Variance at the Hearing.
BURNABY
PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENTS COMMENT:
The subject property is
located in the Douglas-Gilpin area, in a single and two-family R12 District
neighbourhood characterized by smaller lot sizes. The subject site measures 33
ft. in width and 115.6 ft. in depth, with an area of 3,816 sq. ft. The site
observes a downward slope of approximately 8.4 ft. from front to rear. This
corner lot fronts onto Sprott Street to the south and flanks Godwin Avenue to
the east. Immediately west of the subject site and across Sprott Street to the
south are single family dwellings; across Godwin Avenue to the east and across
the lane to the north are two-family dwellings. Vehicular access to the subject
site is via the rear lane. A new two-family dwelling with two detached garages
is proposed for the subject site, for which three variances are requested. All three variances relate
to the proposed accessory building.
The first a) appeal would
permit a distance of 8.25 ft. from the accessory building to the principal
building, with the following further projections: a 2.0 ft. roof projection, a
1.5 ft. bay window projection and a 2.0 ft. balcony projection, 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 second b) appeal would
permit an accessory building, observing a width of 22.5 ft., where a maximum
width of 22.0 ft. is permitted based on two-thirds of the width of the rear
yard.
The intent of this Bylaw
provision is to mitigate the massing impacts of accessory buildings and prevent
a sense of confinement and crowding.
The third c) appeal would
permit an accessory building observing a side yard setback from the west
property line of 2.5 ft., with a further 1.0 ft. roof eave projection, where a
minimum side yard setback of 3.94 ft. is required.
The intent of the Bylaw is
to mitigate massing impacts on neighbouring properties.
The proposed accessory
building would be set back 11.75 ft. from the north property line adjacent to
the rear lane and 8 ft. from the east side property line flanking Godwin
Avenue, in order to provide the required vision clearance at the intersection
of Godwin Avenue and the rear lane. The accessory building would be 22.6 ft.
wide and 19.82 ft. long by approximately 12.5 ft. high to the top of the hip
roof. The building would contain two side-by-side single car garages, accessed
off the rear lane. This building would be consistent with the detached garage
directly across the lane north of the subject site and across Godwin Avenue to
the east. There is no accessory building on the neighbouring property
immediately west of the subject site.
With respect to the first
a) appeal, the distance is measured from the proposed detached garages to the
portion of the principal dwelling that contains the north unit. The principal
building is spilt into two units located front-to-back, with the south unit
occupying the front half of the building and the north unit occupying the rear
half. The area between the garage and residence would be a green space available
to the occupants of the north unit.
The overlap of the garage
and residence would be 21 ft., which is almost the entire width of the garage.
Although small recessed areas are proposed at the entry porch located at the
northwest corner and at the balcony area above, the main living area of the
proposed north unit is within the compromised separation zone. Further, the 9
ft. wide and 1.5 ft. deep bay window would effectively reduce the separation
distance at the ground level to 6.75 ft., leaving insufficient outdoor living
space for the occupants of the north unit.
With respect to the second
b) appeal, the excess width of the proposed accessory building is only 0.5 ft.
However, in combination with the reduced distance between the garage and
residence, the excess width would further contribute to a sense of crowding and
confinement. In addition, other design alternatives exist that could eliminate
the need for this variance. For example, the internal dividing wall between the
two garages could be removed, resulting in a potential width reduction of
approximately 2.5 ft.
With respect to the third
c) appeal, the proposed detached garage would encroach 1.44 ft. into the
required side yard setback over its full length. At the same time, the garage
would overlap the neighbouring dwelling to the west by approximately 10 ft.
Therefore, some impacts on this residence are expected. In addition, it is not
clear how the proposed access to the garage door on the west elevation is going
to be accommodated with only 2.5 ft. available for a pathway. Again, design
options exist that could eliminate the need for this variance.
In summary, all three
variances are related to the fact that the subject site is only 33 ft. wide,
which is restrictive in the case of corner lots, often with little room for
alternative placement of accessory buildings. Further, this proposal would not
be out of the ordinary within the existing development pattern. However, this
proposal would create negative impacts on the occupants of the north unit and
the neighbouring property to the west. Moreover, alternatives exist that could
minimize these impacts.
In view of the above, this
Department objects to the granting of all three variances.
ADJACENT OWNER'S COMMENTS:
An email was received from
Ms. Yasmin Kapadia, 5907 Sprott Street, Burnaby noting that adequate street
parking should be provided for duplex and multiplex properties in the
neighbourhood.
No further submissions 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
OPPOSED:
MS. C. RICHTER
MR.
S. NEMETH
MR.
G. CLARK
DEFEATED
MOVED BY Mr.
b. BHARAJ:
SECONDED BY
MR. S. NEMETH:
THAT based on the plans submitted part
(b) of this appeal be DENIED.
FOR:
MR. B. BHARAJ
OPPOSED:
MS. C. RICHTER
MR.
S. NEMETH
MR.
G. CLARK
DEFEATED
MOVED BY Mr.
b. BHARAJ:
SECONDED BY
MR. S. NEMETH:
THAT based on the plans submitted part
(b) of this appeal be ALLOWED.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
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.
S. NEMETH
MR.
G. CLARK
OPPOSED:
MS. C. RICHTER
CARRIED
|
(f)
|
APPEAL
NUMBER:
|
B.V. 6170
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
APPELLANT:
|
Avtar
Basra
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
REGISTERED
OWNER OF PROPERTY:
|
Canada
Haojun Development Group Co. and A-G Tej Construction Ltd
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CIVIC
ADDRESS OF PROPERTY:
|
6696 Aubrey Street
|
|
|
|
|
|
LEGAL
DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY:
|
Lot
3; District Lot 132; Plan 20814
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
APPEAL:
|
An appeal for the relaxation of
Section 6.3.1 of the Burnaby Zoning Bylaw which, if permitted, will allow for
the construction of a new two family dwelling with a detached garage at 6696
Aubrey Street. The distance between the principal building and detached
garage is 6.0 feet where a minimum distance of 14.8 feet is required. (Zone
R-4).
A previous Board of Variance (BOV
6140 2015 January 08) allowed: a) the principal building front yard setback
from the east property line of 36.0 feet where a minimum 40.0 feet is
required; and b) the detached garage measured from the north property line of
16.0 feet where a minimum 24.6 feet is required.
A previous Board of Variance (BOV
6155 2015 April 02) denied an appeal requesting the distance between the
principal building and the detached garage to be 6.01 feet where a minimum
distance of 14.8 feet is required.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
APPELLANT'S
SUBMISSION:
Vikram Tiku submitted an application for
relaxation of the Burnaby Zoning Bylaw to allow for construction of his
client’s new duplex and detached garage.
Mr. Tiku appeared
before members of the Board of Variance at the Hearing.
BURNABY
PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENTS COMMENT:
This property was the
subject of two recent appeals before the Board regarding siting of the proposed
new two-family dwelling and detached garages.
On 2015 January 08, the Board
approved the following requests (BV#6140): a) a front yard setback, measured
from the east property line to the principal building, of 36.0 ft. where a
minimum of 40.0 ft. is required based on front yard averaging; and b) a
flanking side yard setback, measured from the north property line to the
northernmost of two proposed detached garages, of 16.0 ft. where a minimum of
24.6 ft. is required. On 2015 April 02 (BV#6155) the Board of Variance denied
an appeal to relax the required distance between the principal building and two
newly proposed detached garages from 14.8 ft. to 6.01 ft. This Department’s
comments on the 2015 April 02 appeal are included as Item 1 attached.
The subject site is
currently under construction for the new two-family dwelling. The construction
of the originally approved two detached garages has not yet begun.
This appeal requests a
relaxation of the distance between the principal building and a proposed
detached accessory building containing both a two-car garage and a one-car garage
with carport. The proposed distance between this building and the principal
building is 6.00 ft., where a minimum distance of 14.8 ft. is required. As a
reminder, the Bylaw requires a separation between a principal building and an
accessory building (in this case, the detached garages/carport) to ensure that
the overall massing of the buildings does not have a negative impact on the
subject property and neighbouring properties, as well as to provide for
sufficient outdoor living space.
With the exception of the
one-car garage and carport, which replaces what was previously a two-car
garage; the current proposal is essentially identical to the 2015 April 02
appeal. In that appeal, the two detached one-car garages that were originally
proposed and approved under BV#6140 were replaced by two detached two-car
garages, placed side by side in a single building in the southwest corner of
the lot.
The overall siting of the
detached garages/carport would be the same as the previously proposed detached
garage building, with a negligible reduction in the distance to the principle
building from 6.01 ft. to 6.00 ft. The overall area of the proposed accessory
building is also the same (800 sq. ft.) as proposed in the second appeal, which
is significantly larger than the two single garages (totaling 453.6 sq. ft.) approved
under the original proposal.
With respect to the massing
impacts on subject properties, although the more open carport structure would
help reduce overall massing, the western unit of the duplex would still be
negatively impacted. The 6 foot separation requested between the garage and the
house would occur over a distance of approximately 32 ft. on the western side
of the house, with approximately 21 ft. contributed by the garages to the south
and approximately 11 ft. contributed by carport to the north. (Again, this
Department notes that in the approved proposal, the garages exceeded the
required 14.8 ft. separation from the principal building). This narrow
separation would adversely affect the living space on the ground floor of the
western duplex, in terms of light and views, as the family room, wok kitchen
and kitchen all face onto the garage wall and carport space. Also, the
garage/carport would continue to occupy almost 40% of the side yard of the
western duplex, leaving little room for outdoor recreation for this unit.
With respect to the
neighbouring properties, while the proposed garage/carport structure has less
overall massing and fewer impacts on the streetscape than the 2015 April 02 proposal,
it has significantly greater impacts than the originally approved design. This
design, which the Board approved, was less intrusive because it consisted of
two single car garages, with significantly less floor area, and the massing was
broken up by the driveway which separated them.
In summary, this variance
request appears to be the result of a design choice rather than hardship, as
alternatives exist to redistribute or reduce the proposed floor area to meet
the required separation between two structures. It is noted that the Board has
already approved a variance that would permit two smaller garages that would
have less of an impact. As design solutions exist, and an alternative has been
approved, this Department cannot support the granting of this variance.
ADJACENT OWNER'S COMMENTS:
No submissions
were received regarding this appeal.
DECISION:
MOVED BY MR.
B. BHARAJ:
SECONDED BY MR. S. NEMETH:
“THAT based on the plans submitted
this appeal be ALLOWED.”
FOR:
MR. B. BHARAJ
MR.
G.CLARK
OPPOSED:
MS. C. RICHTER
MR. S. NEMETH
MOTION LOST
|
(g)
|
APPEAL
NUMBER:
|
B.V. 6171
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
APPELLANT:
|
Long
Nguyen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
REGISTERED
OWNER OF PROPERTY:
|
Anna
Wijesinghe
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CIVIC
ADDRESS OF PROPERTY:
|
7615 Coldicutt Street
|
|
|
|
|
|
LEGAL
DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY:
|
Lot
1; District Lot 11; Plan 88412
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
APPEAL:
|
An appeal for the relaxation of
Section 103.7 (b) of the Burnaby Zoning Bylaw which, if permitted, will allow
for the construction of a new rear deck cover to upper floor and new
secondary suite to bottom floor at 7615 Coldicutt Street. The building depth
will be 66.25 feet where a maximum depth of 60.0 feet is permitted. (Zone
R-3).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
APPELLANT'S
SUBMISSION:
Robin Young submitted an application for
relaxation of the Burnaby Zoning Bylaw to allow for retention of a sundeck cover to his
client’s home. Mr. Young noted the structure was built by a previous owner of
the property.
Long Nguyen appeared before members of the Board
of Variance at the Hearing.
BURNABY
PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENTS COMMENT:
The subject site is located
the Cariboo-Armstrong area, in a mature single family neighbourhood. The site
is zoned R3 Residential District, which is intended to preserve the minimum
density of development in mature single family areas. This interior lot, approximately
50 ft. wide and 130 ft. long, fronts onto Coldicutt Street to the northeast.
The subject site abuts single family lots to the northwest and southeast.
Vehicular access to the subject site is provided via Coldicutt Street; there is
no lane access. Green space that is part of Cariboo Hill Secondary School
borders the site to the southwest. The site is relatively flat with a downward
slope of approximately 3 ft. in the northwest-southeast direction.
The subject site is improved with a
single family dwelling, originally built in 1991. The property immediately to the
southeast is improved with a similar residence constructed around the same
time. Sometime before
2006, the subject site was further improved with alterations to the main floor
to accommodate a secondary suite and a roof addition over the rear deck on the
upper floor. These improvements were made without the benefit of a building
permit. The roof addition only is the subject of this appeal.
The appeal is for a
principal building depth of 66.25 ft. where a maximum building depth of 60.0
ft. is permitted.
The Bylaw’s intent in
limiting building depth is to prevent the creation of dwellings that present a
long wall, such that the massing of the building impacts neighbouring
properties.
It should be noted that the
existing dwelling is approximately 71 ft. deep and is legal non-conforming with
respect to the requirements of the Zoning Bylaw. The requested building depth
(66.25 ft.), which is measured to the roof addition, is 4.75 ft. less than this
existing non-conformity. The roof addition contributes 6.25 ft. to the excess
building depth.
The new roof is 13 ft. deep
and 21.67 ft. wide and covers the entire rear deck at the southwest corner of
the existing dwelling. It consists of a flat aluminum roof, supported on
aluminum posts and beams, which connects to the main roof of the dwelling just
at the gutter level.
With respect to the
neighbouring dwelling to the northwest of the subject property, the new roof
projects approximately 25 ft. beyond this residence, which observes a
substantial rear yard setback of 70 ft. and side yard setback of 30 ft.
However, considering the distance between this residence and the subject roof
addition, and the small massing of the proposed roof within the footprint of
the existing dwelling no significant impacts are expected.
The new roof is not visible
from the neighbouring dwelling to the southeast of the subject property, as it
is set back from the outermost rear face of the subject dwelling on the
opposite corner. Many similar deck covers are found in the subject block.
In view of the above, this
Department does not object to the granting of this variance.
ADJACENT OWNER'S COMMENTS:
An email was received from
Ms. Antonietta A. Baldonero, 7630 Coldicutt Street, Burnaby in opposition to
this appeal.
Ms. Kasper, 7609 Coldicutt
Street, Burnaby appeared before members of the Board in opposition to the
appeal if the applicant is proposing to construct another suite.
Planning staff noted the
subject dwelling contains an existing secondary suite. No additional suite is
being proposed for construction.
No further
correspondence was received regarding this appeal.
DECISION:
MOVED BY MR. S. NEMETH:
SECONDED BY MR. G. CLARK:
“THAT based on the plans submitted
this appeal be ALLOWED.”
CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY
|
(h)
|
APPEAL
NUMBER:
|
B.V. 6172
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
APPELLANT:
|
Stevan
Gavrilovic
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
REGISTERED
OWNER OF PROPERTY:
|
Jelena
and Marko Markovic
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CIVIC
ADDRESS OF PROPERTY:
|
1655 Howard Avenue
|
|
|
|
|
|
LEGAL
DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY:
|
Lot
60; District Lot 126; Plan 25437
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
APPEAL:
|
An appeal for the relaxation of
Sections 6.2(2), 102.8(1) and 800.6(1) of the Burnaby Zoning Bylaw which, if
permitted, will allow for the construction of a new single family dwelling at
1655 Howard Avenue. The following variances are being requested:
a) a front yard setback from
Heathdale Drive, to the post, of 39.10 feet where a minimum front yard
setback of 44.57 feet is required based on front yard averaging. The
cantilevered deck joists will extend 2.0 feet beyond the post; and
b) construction of an accessory
building in a required front yard, located 3.94 feet from the West property
line abutting Heathdale Drive and 4.0 feet from the South property line,
where siting of an accessory building in a required front yard is prohibited
by the Zoning Bylaw.(Zone R-2)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
APPELLANT'S
SUBMISSION:
Stevan Gavrilovic submitted an application for
relaxation of the Burnaby Zoning Bylaw to allow for construction of his
client’s new home.
Stevan Gavrilovic and Marko Markovic appeared before members of the Board
of Variance at the Hearing.
BURNABY
PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENTS COMMENT:
The subject site, zoned R2
Residential District, is located in the Parkcrest-Aubrey neighbourhood in which
the majority of single family dwellings were constructed in the 1960s. This
through lot, approximately 57.5 ft. wide and 123.5 ft. long, fronts Howard
Avenue to the east and Heathdale Drive to the west. A large R1 District
property, which is currently vacant, abuts the subject site across Heathdale
Drive to the west. Single family dwellings abut the subject site to the north
and the south. Vehicular access to the site is provided from Heathdale Drive. The site observes a
substantial downward slope of approximately 18 ft. in the northeast-southwest
direction.
A new single family
dwelling with a detached garage is proposed for the subject site, which is the
subject of two appeals.
The first a) appeal
requests a front
yard setback of 39.1 ft., measured to the deck post of the proposed single
family dwelling, with no further projection for roof eaves, where front
yard averaging requires a minimum setback of 44.57 ft. from the Heathdale Drive
property line.
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.
The proposed dwelling would
observe a front yard setback from Howard Avenue of 31.53 ft., which exceeds the
front yard averaging requirement of 30.06 ft. It is noted that a consistent
building edge would be maintained throughout the block, as all the houses have
similar front yard setbacks.
The front yard setback from
Heathdale Drive is the yard for which a setback relaxation is requested. The
front yard averaging calculations on this side of the property are based on the
front yard setbacks of the two dwellings immediately north of the subject site
at 1625 and 1635 Howard Avenue, and the two dwellings immediately south of the
subject site at 1685 and 1725 Howard Avenue. The front yard setbacks for these
properties are 37.19 ft., 53.94 ft., 44.17 ft. and 42.98 ft. respectively.
As noted, the front yard
setback is measured to the posts of the centrally located uncovered deck, which
is raised approximately 5.5 ft. above the adjacent natural grade. With the
exception of the deck, the main body of the dwelling would be set back from the
post face an additional 8 ft. at its southern portion and an additional 10 ft.
at its northern portion. There is also a covered deck proposed at the southwest
corner of the upper floor which would project 2.5 ft. from the main body of the
dwelling.
The proposed siting would
place the subject dwelling 14.84 ft. in front of the neighbouring dwelling to
the north, or 4.84 ft. in front if only the northwest corner is considered;
however, considering that this siting is consistent with the placement of the
current dwelling, which is set back approximately 43 ft. from the front
property line, as measured to the existing raised deck at its northwest corner,
the requested front yard setback would be consistent with the existing
horizontal massing relationship. Also, the generous north side yard setback of
11.12 ft. at the area of encroachment would help mitigate any impacts of the
reduced front yard setback on this neighbouring property.
The proposed siting would
place the subject dwelling 5.07 ft. in front of the neighbouring dwelling to
the south, or 2.93 ft. behind if only the southwest corner is considered. A
generous south side yard setback of 7.34 ft., where a minimum side yard setback
of 4.9 ft. is required, would be a mitigating factor.
With reference to the
broader neighbourhood context, no sense of street frontage exists along the
east side of Heathdale Drive, as the adjacent residential frontages function as
rear yards, some with detached garages abutting the lane and most with decks,
lawn area and other recreational components consistent with this function. The
three homes whose frontages are oriented towards Heathdale Drive are located on
the opposite side of the street and approximately 60 m (197 ft.) south of the
subject site. As such, the siting of the proposed dwelling fits within the
existing neighbourhood context.
In view of the above, this
proposal would not create a negative impact on the existing neighborhood.
Therefore, this Department does not object to the granting of the first a)
variance.
The second b) appeal is for
an accessory building in the Heathdale Drive front yard where accessory buildings are
prohibited.
The intent of the Bylaw in
prohibiting accessory buildings within the required front yard is to provide
for a uniform streetscape with open front yards and to limit the massing
impacts of such structures on neighbouring properties.
The proposed accessory
building, approximately 20 ft. long by 22 ft. wide by 14 ft. high, is located
at the southwest corner of the front yard, 3.94 ft. away from the front
property line and 4.0 ft. away from the south side property line. The proposed siting
would place the accessory building in line with the existing detached garages
on the neighbouring properties to the south and north of the subject site. The
proposed accessory building would be immediately adjacent to the existing
garage to the south. The accessory building would serve as a two-car garage
accessed directly from Heathdale Drive.
Under Section 901 of the Local
Government Act, the Board can rule on a bylaw respecting the siting of a
structure. However, permitting an accessory building in the front yard, where
it is expressly prohibited, is a major variance in that it is a complete
reversal of a bylaw provision that would defeat the intent of the bylaw. It is
noted that Heathdale Drive currently functions more as a lane than a street. Although
Heathdale Drive is within a right-of-way that is 15.24 m (50 ft.) in width,
this right-of-way is not fully developed. In this case, the paved area,
approximately 20 ft. wide, is confined to the eastern half of the right-of-way,
with the western side remaining as an undeveloped green area. In addition, this
right-of way ends approximately 35 m (115 ft.) north of the subject site.
However, a fully developed segment of Heathdale Drive begins approximately 70 m
(230 ft.) to the north of this terminus. It is expected that the subject
section of Heathdale Drive will be improved once the necessary right-of-ways to
connect to the northern segment are obtained.
It is also noted that the
majority of neighbouring lots in the subject block have garages oriented towards
Heathdale Drive, some with reduced setbacks. As noted above, these properties
use the Heathdale Drive yards more like rear yards, with less formal and more
private arrangements. As such, the proposed similar siting of the accessory
building would not be out of ordinary in this case.
Nonetheless, given the age
of neighbouring dwellings, most of which were built in 1964, new development
should anticipate the redevelopment of the surrounding properties and be
designed to meet the intent of the Bylaw rather than existing conditions. As such,
this Department objects to the granting of the second b) variance.
ADJACENT OWNER'S COMMENTS:
A letter dated 2015 June 3 was received from F. Kranz,
owner of 1660 Nation Way, Burnaby opposing the appeal.
No further correspondence
was received regarding this appeal.
DECISION:
MOVED BY MR. S. NEMETH:
SECONDED BY MR. B. BHARAJ:
THAT based on the plans submitted part
(a) of this appeal be ALLOWED.
CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY
MOVED BY MR. S. NEMETH:
SECONDED BY MR. G. CLARK:
THAT
based on the plans submitted part (b) of this appeal be ALLOWED.
FOR:
MR. B. BHARAJ
MR.
S. NEMETH
MR.
G. CLARK
OPPOSED:
MS. C. RICHTER
CARRIED
|
(i)
|
APPEAL
NUMBER:
|
B.V. 6173
|
|
|
|
|
|
CIVIC
ADDRESS OF PROPERTY:
|
8210
Burnlake Drive
|
|
This
appeal was WITHDRAWN prior to the Hearing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
4. 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. BHARAJ:
SECONDED BY MR. S. NEMETH:
"THAT this Hearing do now
adjourn."
CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY
The
Hearing adjourned at 2:33 p.m.
Ms.
C. Richter
_________________________
Mr.
B. Bharaj
Mr.
S. Nemeth
Mr.
G. Clark
S.
Cleave
Deputy
City Clerk