APPELLANT’S SUBMISSION:
Mr. Vikram Tiku, T D Studio Inc., on
behalf of the property owner, submitted an application to allow for interior
alterations, exterior alterations, addition at rear and new accessory
building to an existing single family dwelling at 6279 Service Street.
Mr. Tiku and Ms. Lisa Perizzolo,
owner, appeared before members of the Board of Variance.
BURNABY
PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT COMMENTS:
The subject site, zoned
R4 Residential District, is located in the Windsor neighbourhood in which the
age and condition of single and two family dwellings vary. This interior lot,
approximately 135.33 feet long by 57.37 feet wide, fronts onto Service Street
to the south and borders a green buffer across the lane to the north. To the
west and east of the subject site are single family dwellings. Vehicular
access is provided via Service Street (there is no lane access). The subject
site observes a downward slope of approximately 12.8 feet in the north-south
(rear to front) direction.
The site has a 10.0 feet
wide Statutory Right-of-Way (SROW) along the north property line for a future
lane expansion.
The subject lot is
improved with a single family dwelling, including an attached carport,
originally built in 1968, and an accessory building. In July of 2017, the
City received a building permit application (BLD 17-01016) for interior
alterations and an addition to the rear of the dwelling. Through the review
process City staff determined that various alterations, including the
enclosure of the existing carport, rebuilding of the existing solarium and a
new accessory building, had been constructed without the benefit of a
building permit. As a result, the applicant is requesting four variances in
an attempt to legalize the unauthorized construction. The first two variances
are related to the new accessory building and the two other variances are
related to the existing dwelling.
The first a) appeal is
to vary Section 6.6(2)(d) ”Accessory Buildings and Uses” of the Zoning Bylaw
requirement for the minimum side
yard setback from 3.94 feet to 1.97 feet. The
intent of the Zoning Bylaw in limiting side yard setbacks is to mitigate the
impact of an accessory building massing on neighbouring properties.
The already constructed
accessory building (shed) is located directly north of the north-west corner
of the existing dwelling. (The distance between the accessory building and
the dwelling is the subject of the second b) appeal). The City’s 2010 aerial
indicates that a much smaller accessory building existed in a similar
location and origins of which could be linked to the building permit B63302
records from 1987: a small accessory building was indicated on the site plan,
siting of which appears to be in compliance with the Zoning Bylaw. The
current accessory building appears on the City’s 2012 aerial.
The accessory building
is approximately 12.28 feet long by 8.84 feet wide and 9.0 feet high. The
side yard encroachment of 1.97 feet, as measured to the foundations, occurs
over the entire building length.
The accessory building
is partly screened by an approximately 4.0 feet high fence (chain link fence
with plastic slats) which runs along the west side property line. However,
more than half of the accessory building elevation is fully visible from the
rear yard of the western neighbour and as such, creates a negative massing
impact on the neighbouring property to the west.
In consideration of the
above, and since there is a larger area on site to locate an accessory
building outside of the required side yards, this Department cannot support
the granting of the first a) appeal.
The second b) appeal is
to vary Section 6.3.1 “Distance between Buildings on the same Lot” of the
Zoning Bylaw requirement for the minimum distance from 14.8 feet to 7.84
feet.
The intent of the Zoning
Bylaw in limiting the distance between buildings on the same lot is to
minimize effects of building massing on neighbouring properties as well as to
provide sufficient outdoor living space for residents.
In this case, the
dwelling features a window at the lower level which partly overlaps the
accessory building. Considering that the required separation between two
structures is reduced almost by a half, there is a concern that day lighting
of the lower north-west portion of the dwelling is affected by this variance.
(No plans of the lower level were submitted.)
Further, there is
approximately 32.0 feet of the rear yard available to the north of the
accessory building, excluding the rear SROW. Therefore, there is sufficient
outdoor living space for residents. The sizable rear yard setback would allow
for other design options to be explored in order to accommodate an accessory
building in compliance with the Zoning Bylaw and with no impacts on the
dwelling residents.
In consideration of the
above, and since the placement of the accessory building is driven by a
design choice rather than a hardship, this Department cannot support the
granting of the second b) appeal.
The third
c) appeal is to vary Section 104.8(1) “Depth of Principal Building” of the
Zoning Bylaw requirement for the maximum building depth from 60.0 feet
to 62.43 feet.
The intent of the Zoning
Bylaw in limiting the principal building depth is to prevent construction of
dwellings that present long imposing walls, such that the massing of the
building impacts neighbouring properties. The building depth is calculated as
a horizontal distance between the point of the building nearest the front lot
line and the point of the building nearest the rear lot line.
In this case, the
existing dwelling resembles a rough “Z” in shape, with the attached carport
(already enclosed) projecting 12.63 feet from the front face at the
south-west corner of the dwelling and with the solarium (already rebuilt)
projecting 15.5 feet from the rear face at the north-east corner.
According to the
building permit B63302 records (from 1987), the existing dwelling observes a
depth of 62.43 feet, which is legal non-conforming with respect to the
current Zoning Bylaw requirements. The Zoning Bylaw at the time of
construction did not regulate a maximum principal building depth.
This proposal does not
increase the existing building depth; the subject renovations: enclosing of
the carport and rebuilding the existing solarium, are within the existing
footprint of the dwelling.
Further, the staggered
design of the subject dwelling effectively eliminates the appearance of a
unbroken long wall; the portions of the dwelling immediately adjacent to the
west and east side property lines are 46.51 feet and 44.15 feet long,
respectively, which is substantially less than the maximum permitted depth
(60.0 feet).
In summary, considering
the existing conditions and that this variance creates little impacts on the
neighbouring properties, this Department does not object to the granting of
the third c) variance.
The fourth d) appeal is
to vary Section 104.9 “Front Yard” of the Zoning Bylaw requirement for a front yard depth, based
on front yard averaging, from 31.25 feet to 26.38 feet.
In 1991, Council
responded to the public concerns with respect to the bulk and massing of the
newer and larger homes that were built in the established neighbourhoods.
Several text amendments to the Zoning Bylaw were made to address these
concerns, including the requirement of a larger front yard where the average
front yard depth of the two dwellings on either side of the subject site
exceeds the required front yard applicable to the zone. The larger front yard
requirement should be calculated through the “front yard averaging”. The
intent of the amendment was to improve the consistency and harmony of the new
construction with the existing neighbourhood.
In this case the front
yard averaging calculations are based on the front yard setbacks of the two
dwellings immediately to the west (6237 and 6251 Service Street) and on the
front yard setback of the dwelling to the east (6061 Gilley Ave). The front
yard setbacks for these properties are 35.05 feet, 33.15 feet, and 25.55
feet, respectively.
In this case, the front
yard setback is measured to the existing foundation of the carport. As
mentioned above, the carport projects 12.63 feet from the south-west corner
of the existing dwelling. The remaining body of the dwelling observes a
distance of 39.01 feet to the front property line.
According to the
building permit B21369 records (from 1968) a front yard setback of 25.0 feet
was permitted. The existing dwelling actually observes a slightly larger
front yard setback of 26.38 feet. Therefore, the existing dwelling is legal
non-conforming with respect to the current Zoning Bylaw requirements. The
Zoning Bylaw at that time did not contain a requirement for front yard averaging.
The request for this
variance is a result of enclosing the existing 25.6 feet wide by 12.63 feet
deep carport with walls; the southern portion of the wall enclosure now
encroaches into the required front yard (based on front yard averaging) by
4.87 feet. However, since there is no change to the existing carport roof
lines and the new wall enclosure remains within the existing footprint, the
additional massing impacts on the neighbouring residence to the west of the
subject site is minimal.
With regard to the
broader neighbourhood context, the additional massing created by the carport
wall enclosure is not impactful when viewed from the Service Street side.
In summary, considering
the existing conditions and that this variance creates little impacts on the
neighbouring properties and the existing streetscape, this Department does
not object to the granting of the fourth d) variance.
ADJACENT OWNER’S COMMENTS:
No submissions were
received regarding this appeal.
|