|
|
|
|
|
 Board of
Variance
|
|
|
|
M I N U
T E S
|
|
|
|
A
Hearing of the Board of Variance was held in the Council Chamber, City Hall,
4949 Canada Way, Burnaby, B.C. on Thursday, 2018 November 01 at 6:00
p.m.
|
|
PRESENT:
|
Mr.
Stephen Nemeth, Chair
Mr.
Rana Dhatt, Citizen Representative
Ms.
Brenda Felker, Citizen Representative
Mr.
Wayne Peppard, Citizen Representative
|
|
|
|
|
ABSENT:
|
Mr.
Brian Pound, Citizen Representative
|
|
|
|
|
STAFF:
|
Ms.
Margaret Malysz, Development Plan Approvals Supervisor
Ms.
Joy Adam, Development Plan Technician
Ms.
Lauren Cichon, Administrative Officer
|
|
The Chair called the meeting to
order at 6:03 p.m.
|
|
MOVED
BY MR. DHATT
SECONDED
BY MR. PEPPARD
|
|
|
|
THAT the minutes of the Burnaby
Board of Variance Hearing held on 2018 October 04 be adopted.
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. 6339
|
|
|
|
|
|
APPELLANT:
|
Tim
Tse
|
|
|
|
|
REGISTERED
OWNER OF PROPERTY:
|
Darryl
and Tia Ho
|
|
|
|
|
CIVIC
ADDRESS OF PROPERTY:
|
5490 Monarch Street
|
|
|
|
|
LEGAL
DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY:
|
Lot:
17 DL: 80 Plan: NWP20936
|
|
|
|
|
APPEAL:
|
An appeal for the relaxation of
Section 102.6(1)(a) of the Burnaby Zoning Bylaw which, if permitted, would
allow for construction of a new single family dwelling with a secondary suite
and detached garage at 5490 Monarch Street, with a principal building height
of 32.94 feet (sloped roof) measured from the rear average grade, where the
maximum height of 29.50 feet is permitted. Zone R2.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
APPELLANT’S
SUBMISSION:
Tim Tse, on behalf of the
property owners, submitted an application to allow for the construction of a
new single family dwelling with a secondary suite and detached garage.
Mr.
Tse appeared before members of the Board of Variance.
BURNABY
PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT COMMENTS:
The subject site is zoned
R2 Residential District and is located in the Douglas-Gilpin district where the
ages and conditions of single family dwellings vary. This interior rectangular
lot is approximately 80.02 feet wide by 135.03 feet deep. The subject site
fronts Monarch Street to the north and a lane to the rear. Abutting the site to
the east and west are single family lots and across Monarch Street to the north
and the lane to the south (rear). Vehicular access to the site is proposed via
the lane at the rear. The site observes a lengthwise downward slope of
approximately 22.0 feet from Monarch Street to the lane. The subject site is
restricted by a 10.0 feet wide Statutory Right of Way for Sewerage and Drainage
purposes along its western property line.
The subject property is
proposed to be redeveloped with a new single family dwelling (partially under
construction), detached garage, and a swimming pool.
The appeal is for a
building height of 32.94 feet measured from the rear average grade, where a
maximum height of 29.5 feet is permitted.
The intent of the height
requirements of the Zoning Bylaw is to mitigate the massing impacts of new
buildings and structures on neighbouring properties and to preserve the view.
A Building Permit (BLD
17-00813) for a new single family dwelling was issued in December of 2017. An
additional permit for a swimming pool was applied for in June of 2018 at which
time City staff noticed that the, now under construction, single family
dwelling did not meet the approved permit height requirements based on the
existing average grade shown on the permit. As of October 5th, 2018
a work suspension has been issued on the subject site.
The requested variance is
for the rear elevation height. In this case, the height calculation is based on
the building height as measured from the proposed rear average grade to the
highest peak of the roof. The over height portion (3.44 feet) of the roof
occurs over the main ridgeline of the roof peak running in an east-west
direction, which is approximately 9.5 feet wide and set back by approximately
17.0 feet in relation to the outermost rear building face at the main floor.
The requested variance is
directly related to the alteration of the existing grade to the rear of the
subject dwelling.
When viewed from the South
property line bordered by the lane, a section of roof 7.5 feet long would
exceed the permitted height by 3.44 feet. This over-height portion then slopes
downward to the east and west by a distance of 10.0 feet before meeting the
bylaw required building height. The total length of the over-height portion is
approximately 27.5 feet. The additional bulk and massing of the roof will be
perceived by the neighbour to the east and across the lane to the south. Along
the east and rear elevations of the building no design options were made to
mitigate the effects of massing. A three storey high wall is proposed without
any measures to reduce massing impacts on neighbours.
In summary, this proposal
defeats the intent of the Bylaw to regulate building height. In addition, the
proposed variance negatively impacts the neighbouring properties. The requested
variance is directly related to the alteration of the rear average grade after
the Building Permit was issued. Therefore, this Department cannot support the
granting of this variance.
ADJACENT OWNER’S COMMENTS:
Letters advising of no
objection to the purposed variance were received from 4277 Atlee Avenue; 4835
Baytree Court; 5710 Cedarwood Street; 5503, 5694, 5703, 5812 Eglinton Street;
5682 Forest Street; 5411 Gilpin Street; 5355 Ivar Place; 5510, 5460, 5470, 5480,
5485, 5495, 5570 Monarch Street; 4469 Percival Avenue; 4250, 4362 Royal Oak
Avenue and 5511, 5530 Moreland Drive.
|
MOVED BY ms. felker
SECONDED BY mr. peppard
|
|
|
|
THAT
based on the plans submitted, this appeal be DENIED.
FOR: MS.
FELKER
MR.
PEPPARD
OPPOSED: MR.
NEMETH
MR.
DHATT
CARRIED
This
appeal was DENIED.
|
|
(b)
|
APPEAL
NUMBER:
|
B.V. 6340
|
|
|
|
|
|
APPELLANT:
|
Xu
(Patrick) Yang, Pacific West Architecture
|
|
|
|
|
REGISTERED
OWNER OF PROPERTY:
|
Helena
Chen and Daniel Yang
|
|
|
|
|
CIVIC
ADDRESS OF PROPERTY:
|
4636 Northview Court
|
|
|
|
|
LEGAL
DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY:
|
Lot:
36 DL: 33 Plan: NWP15118
|
|
|
|
|
APPEAL:
|
An appeal for the relaxation of
Section 104.9 of the Burnaby Zoning Bylaw which, if permitted, would allow
for construction of a new single family dwelling and detached garage at 4636
Northview Court, with a front yard depth of 25.67 feet, where a minimum front
yard depth of 38.26 feet is required based on front yard averaging. Zone R4.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
APPELLANT’S SUBMISSION:
Patrick Yang, on behalf of
the property owners, submitted an application for the construction of a new
single family dwelling with a detached garage at 4636 Northview Court.
Mr. Patrick Yang and Mr.
Daniel Yang 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 Marlborough area where the majority of
single family dwellings were built in the 1980’s. The site is an irregularly
shaped interior lot located on a cul de sac which fronts onto Northview Court
to the north and abuts a lane to the south (rear). The site slopes downward
approximately 7.3 feet in a south-north (rear to front) direction along the
eastern property line and 10.1 feet along the angled western property line. To
the east, west and across Northview Court (north) of the subject lot are single
family dwellings. Vehicular access to the subject site is proposed to remain
via the lane to the rear (south).
The subject site is
proposed to be redeveloped with a single family dwelling and detached garage. The appeal is to vary Section 104.9
– “Front Yard” of the Zoning Bylaw from 38.26 feet, based on front yard
averaging, to the proposed 25.67 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
“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 neighbouring properties to the east: 4642 and 4650 Northview Court and
the two properties to the west: 4628 and 4622 Northview Court. These front yard setbacks are 26.78 feet,
39.67 feet, 41.75 feet, and 44.82 feet respectively.
The subject
variance is measured to the foundation of the proposed single family dwelling.
Based on the front yard averaging requirement (38.26 feet) and rear yard
setback requirements (29.5 feet) of the Bylaw, the subject site is limited in
the permitted siting of the proposed dwelling. The lot depth is reduced by the
crescent shaped north property line along the Northview Court cul de sac which
contributes to the irregular shape. The existing dwelling on the subject site
was granted a variance in 1990 for the rear yard setback requirement (BV 3553)
from 29.5 feet to 24.0 feet and observed a front yard setback of 33.0 feet.
The proposed variance runs
along the northern façade from the northwest corner for 17.0 feet where it is
then further set back an additional 4.0 feet to accommodate the porch and
remainder of the fronting façade. The upper storey is staggered an additional
2.5 feet beyond the requested variance along the northern façade before it is
further reduced by 4.0 feet continuing to the northeastern corner. The
staggered design of the proposed building somewhat mitigates negative impacts
due to massing on neighbouring properties.
With respect to
the neighbouring properties, the front yard setbacks of the Northview Court cul
de sac vary significantly due to the irregular shapes of these lots and their
location on the cul de sac. Some hardship is experienced by the subject lot as
a result of the lot shape and location. The proposed siting of the subject
dwelling would not be out of character in comparison to the neighbouring
properties.
In summary, as the
proposed variance poses little negative impacts on neighbouring properties and
is directly related to hardship, this Department does not object to the
granting of this variance.
ADJACENT OWNER’S COMMENTS:
A letter in support to the
proposed variance was received from the homeowner at 4622 Northview Court.
The homeowner at 4628
Northview Court appeared before the Board expressing concern regarding the loss
of privacy and views.
|
MOVED By mr. dhatt
SECONDED By mr. peppard
|
|
|
|
THAT
based on the plans submitted, this appeal be ALLOWED.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
|
|
(c)
|
APPEAL
NUMBER:
|
B.V. 6341
|
|
|
|
|
|
APPELLANT:
|
William
(Bill) Steemson
|
|
|
|
|
REGISTERED
OWNER OF PROPERTY:
|
William
(Bill) Steemson
|
|
|
|
|
CIVIC
ADDRESS OF PROPERTY:
|
205 Hythe Avenue
|
|
|
LEGAL
DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY:
|
Lot:
B DL: 127 Plan: NWP21395
|
|
|
|
|
APPEAL:
|
An appeal for the relaxation of
Section 102.10 of the Burnaby Zoning Bylaw which, if permitted, would allow
for a rear addition and a new accessory building to an existing single family
dwelling at 205 Hythe Avenue, with a rear yard depth of 23.6 feet, where a
minimum rear yard depth of 29.5 feet is required. Zone R2.
|
|
APPELLANT’S SUBMISSION:
William (Bill) Steemson, property
owner, submitted an application to allow for a rear addition and a new
accessory building to an existing single family dwelling.
Mr. Steemson 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
Capitol Hill neighbourhood, in which the age and condition of single family
dwellings vary. This interior lot, approximately 41.1 feet wide and 121.4
feet deep, fronts onto Hythe Avenue to the east. Abutting the subject site to
the south and north are single family dwellings (the subject lot and the lot
immediately south are registered under the same ownerships). Vehicular access to the
site is provided from the rear lane to the west. The site observes a
substantial downward slope of approximately 19.6 feet from the northeast
corner to the southwest corner of the lot.
The subject site was
originally improved with a single family dwelling and a carport/sundeck,
built in 1960. Over the years, the site was further improved with an
accessory building and a rear addition to the principal building created by
enclosing the attached carport. Origins of these improvements are not known.
The City’s aerials from 2016 & 2017 indicate further changes to the
sundeck over the original carport area, which currently resemble a slightly
larger flat roof.
In September
of 2018, the City received a building permit application (BLD 18-00904) for a
rear addition (enclosed carport) to the existing single family dwelling,
interior and exterior alterations to accommodate a new secondary suite and
for a new accessory building. Through the review process City staff
determined that various alterations, including the enclosure of the existing
carport, had been constructed without the benefit of a building permit. As a result,
the applicant is requesting a variance in an attempt to legalize the
unauthorized construction of the rear addition.
This appeal is to vary
Section 102.10 – “Rear Yard” of the Zoning Bylaw from 29.5 feet to 23.6
feet to allow the proposed rear addition (already constructed) to the
existing single family dwelling.
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.
According to the City’s
records the original principal building observed 23.0 feet rear yard
setback, as measured to the original carport/sundeck, which is legal
non-conforming with respect to the current Zoning Bylaw requirements.
The proposed rear addition,
approximately 11.5 feet wide and 21.9 feet deep, encroaches 5.9 feet into the
required rear yard setback. It appears that the proposed rear addition remains within
the footprint of the original carport/sundeck, which was attached to the rear
south-west corner of the dwelling. Therefore, it appears that the rear yard
depth is not decreased; in fact, a small increase (0.6 feet) is indicated on
the provided survey.
The proposed addition is
approximately 13.0 feet in height as measured to the top of the flat roof or
16.5 feet as measured to the top of the sundeck guard. It is not clear if the
flat roof over the rear addition (already constructed) is at a higher
elevation than the original sundeck floor once was. The proposed new sundeck
on top of the flat roof is not constructed yet. The rear addition will
contain storage space on two levels; with the lower level sunken to the
ground approximately 4.0 feet.
With respect to the
massing impacts, it
appears that the neighbouring properties would not be meaningfully affected
by the proposed rear yard encroachment. The rear addition observes a north
side yard setback of 24.9 feet. Such a generous setback effectively mitigates
any imparts on the neighbouring residence to the north. This residence features a
similar sundeck component in its rear yard; the subject rear addition appears
to be in line with this component.
With respect to the
neighbouring property to the south, the subject rear addition overlaps the detached garage
located closely to the shared south side property line; although the garage
is at a lower level in relation to the subject addition, any direct views
onto the neighbouring rear yard are essentially screened by the garage roof.
With respect to the neighbouring
property across the lane to the west, considering that the views are
predominantly oriented to the west, as well as the fact that this variance
involves a relatively small massing increase, as compared to the existing
conditions (the enclosure of the existing carport), the impacts on this
residence are not immediately noticeable.
With respect
to outdoor living space, the proposed rear addition does not affect the
existing rear yard area, as it remains within the original carport footprint.
In summary,
considering the existing conditions and the absence of any anticipated
negative impacts on the adjacent properties, this Department does not object
to the granting of the appeal.
ADJACENT OWNERS’ COMMENTS:
The resident at 4950 Pandora Street
appeared before the expressing concerns regarding the loss of views.
Correspondence was received from the
resident of 4950 Pandora Street advising they were opposed to this variance. A
petition opposing the appeal was received from residents of 202, 204, 210
Delta Avenue; 4990 Empire Drive; 135, 204, 231, 295, 321, 353 Hythe Avenue
and 4949, 4950 Pandora Street.
The petition reads as follows:
“We, the undersigned, unanimously
object to the relaxation requested by the homeowner of 205 Hythe Avenue and
ask the Board of Variance to deny this request. As homeowners and residents
in our community, perched on the west side of Capitol Hill, we recognize that
our unobstructed views of the City and mountains are not only key to our
enjoyment but are also intrinsically tied to our property value. If the Board
of Variance permits this relaxation, the views for the neighbouring homes of
205 Hythe Avenue will be negatively affected, and with that their property
values, for the benefit of a single homeowner.
As a community, we believe the
Burnaby Zoning Bylaws were written in an effort to maintain gentle boundaries
for what is acceptable and unacceptable. Together, it is our sincere hope
that the Board of Variance will see the derogatory side effect that
permitting a relaxation, such as this one, will have on the community.”
|
|
MOVED BY mr. peppard
SECONDED BY ms. felker
|
|
|
|
|
|
THAT
based on the plans submitted, this appeal be DENIED.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(d)
|
APPEAL
NUMBER:
|
B.V. 6342
|
|
|
|
|
|
APPELLANT:
|
David
Wong, WHG Design Ltd.
|
|
|
|
|
REGISTERED
OWNER OF PROPERTY:
|
Cynthia
and Gordon Wong
|
|
|
|
|
CIVIC
ADDRESS OF PROPERTY:
|
6328 Caulwynd Place
|
|
|
|
|
LEGAL
DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY:
|
Lot:
B DL: 160 Plan: LMP8902
|
|
|
|
|
APPEAL:
|
An appeal for the relaxation of
Sections 102.7(a) and 102.8(1) of the Burnaby Zoning Bylaw which, if
permitted, would allow for an addition to cellar floor to an existing single
family dwelling at 6328 Caulwynd Place. The following variances were
requested:
a) A principal building depth of
72.80 feet, where the maximum building depth of 57.91 feet is permitted; and,
b) A front yard depth of 14.21 feet,
where a minimum front yard depth of 24.60 feet is required. Zone R2.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
APPELLANT’S SUBMISSION:
David Wong, WHG Design
Ltd., on behalf of the property owners, submitted an application to allow for
an addition to the cellar floor to an existing single family dwelling.
Mr. David Wong 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 Stride Hill neighbourhood in which the
age and condition of single family dwellings vary. This interior flanking lot
is an irregular (trapezoid
shaped) lot, approximately
62.59 feet wide by 96.31 feet deep along the shorter south side property line
and 133.82 feet deep along the longer north side property line. The subject
site fronts onto the Caulwynd Place cul-de-sac along its curved southeastern
property line and is flanked by a lane to the (side) north and (rear) west. Vehicular access
is provided from the Caulwynd Place cul-de-sac to the east. No vehicular access
is provided from the Lane.
The subject site is
improved with a single family dwelling and attached garage on the lower level.
Abutting the subject site are single family lots across the cul-de-sac to the
east and neighbouring the site to the south. Across the lane to the north and
west are single family dwellings. The applicant proposes to expand the existing
garage which is the subject of the variance requests.
The first a) appeal
requests a “Depth of Principal Building” of 72.80 feet where a maximum of 57.91
feet is required. The intent of the principal building depth requirement of the
Zoning Bylaw is to prevent construction of dwellings that present long imposing
walls, where the massing of the building impacts the neighbouring properties.
According to the Building
Permit BLD 04-00059 (issued in 2004), the existing dwelling observes a building
depth of 56.33 feet (which meets the building depth requirements), as measured
from the front face of the existing attached garage to the rear face of the
dwelling. The main body of the dwelling contributes approximately 32.92 feet
plus the existing garage of 23.94 feet.
This appeal proposes to
expand the existing garage into the front yard abutting the Caulwynd Place
cul-de-sac. The proposed garage expansion would increase the building depth by
16.47 feet as measured to the face of the proposed garage extension. In this
case the main two storey body of the dwelling will not be affected by the
garage expansion and therefore remains within the required 57.91 feet building
depth. However, an imposing wall would be present at the lower level extending
along the north façade from the rear building face to the front face of the
proposed garage expansion.
In view of the above, as
the proposed variance is considered a major variance that does not meet the
intent of the Bylaw and creates negative impacts on the overall neighbourhood
pattern, this Department objects to the granting of this first a) variance.
The second b) appeal
request a “Front Yard” setback of 14.21 feet where a minimum of 24.60 feet is
required. In this case front yard averaging does not apply. The intent of the
front yard requirements of the Zoning Bylaw is to mitigate the massing impacts
of the buildings and structures on the neighbouring properties and to create a
cohesive streetscape.
According to the Building
Permit BLD 04-00059 (issued in 2004), the existing dwelling observes a front
yard setback of 27.16 feet (which meets the front yard setback requirements),
as measured from the front face of the existing attached garage.
This appeal proposes to
expand the existing garage into the front yard by 10.39 feet beyond the
required front yard setback. The two storey body of the existing dwelling will
not be affected by this variance as the subject variance is only requested for
the garage expansion at the lower level. The remainder of the existing dwelling
is set back by approximately 19.0 feet to the existing patio from the face of
the proposed garage expansion.
In the broader
neighbourhood context the proposed garage expansion into the front yard is a
major variance that will be out of place in the overall neighbourhood pattern.
In view of the above, as
the proposed variance is considered a major variance that does not meet the
intent of the Bylaw and creates negative impacts on the overall neighbourhood
pattern, this Department objects to the granting of this second b) variance.
ADJACENT OWNER’S COMMENTS:
Correspondence was received
from the resident of 8006 Gilley Avenue advising they were opposed to this
variance.
No further correspondence
was received regarding this appeal.
|
MOVED BY MR. PEPPARD
SECONDED
BY MR. DHATT
|
|
|
|
THAT
based on the plans submitted, part (a) of this appeal be DENIED.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
|
|
MOVED BY MR. PEPPARD
SECONDED
BY MS. FELKER
|
|
|
|
THAT
based on the plans submitted, part (b) of this appeal be DENIED.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
|
|
(e)
|
APPEAL
NUMBER:
|
B.V. 6343
|
|
|
|
|
|
APPELLANT:
|
Grace
Yuen
|
|
|
|
|
REGISTERED
OWNER OF PROPERTY:
|
Grace
and Hoi Yuen
|
|
|
|
|
CIVIC
ADDRESS OF PROPERTY:
|
290 Howard Avenue North
|
|
|
LEGAL
DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY:
|
Lot:
37146 DL: 189 Plan: 4953
|
|
|
|
|
APPEAL:
|
An appeal for the relaxation of
Sections 102.8(1) and 102.10 of the Burnaby Zoning Bylaw which, if permitted,
would allow for an interior alteration and new secondary suite to the
basement to an existing single family dwelling at 290 Howard Avenue North. The
following variances were requested:
a) A front yard depth of 18.25 feet,
where a minimum front yard depth of 24.6 feet is required based on front yard
averaging; and,
b) A rear yard depth of 15.83 feet,
where a minimum rear yard depth of 29.5 feet is required. Zone R2.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
APPELLANT’S SUBMISSION:
Grace Yuen, property owner,
submitted an application to allow for an interior alteration and new secondary
suite to the basement to an existing single family dwelling.
Ms. Yuen and Mr. Ross
Graham, Designer, 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 Capitol
Hill neighbourhood, in which the age and condition of single family dwellings
vary. This irregular lot resembles an elongated rough triangular in shape. The
lot is approximately 105.2 feet deep along the south side property line and has
approximately 206.15 feet of frontage on Howard Avenue North, which slightly
curves along the west side of the property.
This portion of Howard
Avenue North right-of-way is undeveloped and it appears like part of a forested portion of Harbourview Park further
to the west. Abutting the subject site to the south and across the lane to the
east are single family dwellings. The lane turns around the northern tip of the
lot, approximately 19.5 feet long, and connects to the Howard Avenue North
right-of-way. This section of the lane right-of-way is also undeveloped. Vehicular access to the site is
provided from the lane at the south-east corner of the site. The site observes
a substantial downward slope of approximately 14.4 feet in the west-east
direction.
In 1959 the subject site was improved with a single
family dwelling and an attached carport. The carport was subsequently converted
to an attached garage in 1986; this conversion was subject to the Board of
Variance granting a variance to reduce the required rear yard setback from
29.53 feet to 15.0 feet. The site is currently under construction for various
exterior and interior alterations, including a secondary suite in the basement,
in accordance to the building permit BLD17-10031 issued in February 2018. The
applicant is now proposing further revisions which include a new roof form,
which is the subject of the two variances.
The first a) appeal is to vary
Section 102.8(1) – “Front Yard” of the Zoning Bylaw from 24.60 feet to 18.25
feet to allow the proposed exterior alterations to the existing
single family dwelling.
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 is to vary Section 102.10 – “Rear Yard” of the Zoning Bylaw from 29.50
feet to 15.83 feet to allow the proposed exterior alterations to the existing
single family dwelling.
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 triggered by the proposed new roof form: the
existing flat roof would be replaced with a sloped roof which slightly
increases the overall massing of the existing dwelling; there is no change to
the existing footprint of the dwelling. The sloped roof would add approximately
3.75 feet to the overall building height as measured to the roof peak.
With respect to
the front yard setback, due to the site geometry and the angled placement of
the existing dwelling in the relation to the front property line, only a small
portion of the proposed new roof, at the north-west corner of the dwelling,
would encroach into the required front yard. In fact, the south-west corner of
the building observes a slightly larger setback (approximately 27.0 feet) than
the minimum required.
Similarly, with
respect to the rear yard setback, due to the angled placement of the existing
dwelling in relation to the rear property line, only small portions of the
proposed new roof, at the north-east corners of the dwelling, would encroach
into the required rear yard. Again, the south-east corner of the building
observes a slightly larger setback (approximately 33.0 feet) than the minimum
required.
Therefore,
considering the small scale of the front and rear yard encroachment by the
proposed new roof, which is not visible from the adjacent residences, both
variances would not create any impacts on neighbouring properties.
In summary, considering the
challenging geometry of the site, existing conditions and small scale of the
two variances requested, as well as 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:
The resident at 351
Ellesmere Avenue North appeared before the Board supporting the purposed
variance.
|
MOVED BY MR. DHATT
SECONDED
BY MS. FELKER
|
|
|
|
THAT
based on the plans submitted, part (a) of this appeal be ALLOWED.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
|
|
MOVED BY MR. DHATT
SECONDED
BY MS. FELKER
|
|
|
|
THAT
based on the plans submitted, part (b) of this appeal be ALLOWED.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
|
|
(f)
|
APPEAL
NUMBER:
|
B.V. 6344
|
|
|
|
|
|
APPELLANT:
|
Fred
Maddalozzo
|
|
|
|
|
REGISTERED
OWNER OF PROPERTY:
|
Biagio
Pepe and
Carmina
Tavares-Pepe
|
|
|
|
|
CIVIC
ADDRESS OF PROPERTY:
|
2111 Jordan Drive
|
|
|
|
|
LEGAL
DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY:
|
Lot:
52 DL: 131 Plan: NWP26174
|
|
|
|
|
APPEAL:
|
An appeal for the relaxation of
Sections 6.6(2)(g)(i), 102.8(1) and 102.9(1) of the Burnaby Zoning Bylaw
which, if permitted, would allow for interior alterations, addition, new
secondary suite and new detached garage to an existing single family dwelling
at 2111 Jordan Drive. The following variances were requested:
a) A side yard setback of 11.72 feet
adjoining the flanking street, where a minimum side yard setback of 24.60
feet is required;
b) A front yard depth of 27.70 feet,
where a minimum front yard depth of 29.9 feet is required based on front yard
averaging; and,
c) A side yard setback of 4.00 feet,
where a minimum side yard setback of 4.90 feet is required. Zone R2.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
APPELLANT’S SUBMISSION:
Fred Maddalozzo, on behalf
of the property owners, submitted an application to allow for interior alterations,
addition, new secondary suite and new detached garage to an existing single
family dwelling.
Mr. Maddalozzo and Mr. Eric
van der Eerden, Designer, 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 Sperling-Broadway neighbourhood in
which the age and condition of single family dwellings vary. This corner lot is
an irregular (trapezoid
shaped),
approximately 50.0 feet wide by 116.7 feet deep along the longer west and south
side property lines. The subject site fronts onto Jordan Drive along its angled
west property line and onto the Delwood Court cul-de-sac to the north. Vehicular access
to the subject site is proposed to remain via Jordan Drive to the west; there
is no lane access.
The subject site is relatively flat with a minimal downward slope in the
north-south direction.
The applicant proposes
various alterations to the existing single family dwelling including interior
alterations, an addition to the rear and south side of the dwelling, addition
of a secondary suite and a detached garage.
The first a) appeal is for
the construction of a detached garage observing a flanking street side yard
setback of 11.72 feet where a minimum of 24.60 feet The intent of the Bylaw in
limiting side yard setbacks is to mitigate the impact of massing on
neighbouring properties.
The subject variance is
required based on the Bylaw requirement that when a rear lot line of a corner
lot abuts a side lot line of an adjacent lot, an accessory building shall be
located not closer to the flanking street than the standard front yard setback
prescribed for the principal building in the district without the application
of front yard averaging. In this particular case the required setback is 24.60
feet.
The proposed two car garage
measures 20.0 feet in the north-south direction by 23 feet in the east-west
direction. As a result of the irregular shape of the subject lot, if the
proposed garage were to meet the setback requirement of 24.60 feet from the
flanking street (Delwood Court) and a zero setback requirement from the
southern neighbouring lot, a typical garage this size could not be
accommodated. However, there are other siting and design options.
With respect to impacts on
neighbouring properties, the subject garage would be located 4.0 feet from the
western property line. City records indicate that the neighbouring dwelling at
6602 Delwood Court sits 5.0 feet from the bordering property line. Various
existing tall hedges border the western neighbouring lot which would help to
mitigate impacts of massing directly affected by the proposed garage.
In view of the overall
neighbourhood context, most properties incorporate an attached garage or carport
into the design of the existing dwellings. However, the majority of lots in
this neighbourhood do not have the option of rear and side yard vehicle access.
Front yard vehicle access is the typical design in this neighbourhood.
In summary, although the irregular
shape of the lot does create some hardship, some negative impacts would be felt
on the western neighbouring site and overall neighbourhood context; therefore,
this department cannot support the granting of this first a) variance.
The second b) appeal
proposes the relaxation of Section 102.8(1) “Front Yards” of the Zoning Bylaw
for the minimum front yard depth from 29.9 feet (based on front yard averaging)
to 27.70 feet as measured to the foundation of the proposed addition.
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 neighbouring properties to the south: 2121 and 2131 Jordan Drive. These front yard setbacks are 26.6 feet
and 33.2 feet respectively. The existing dwelling on the subject site observes
a front yard setback of 27.70 feet.
The proposed
variance is requested as a result of the addition at the cellar level. The
cellar addition is proposed in line with the exterior wall of the existing
dwelling main and upper floors along the eastern façade. The same front yard
setback as is now being requested by the applicant existed when the dwelling
was originally constructed in 1964. Since the original dwelling was constructed
prior to the enactment of the Zoning Bylaw, it is considered legal
non-conforming with respect to siting.
In summary, as
the proposed variance has no negative impacts on neighbouring properties due to
increased massing and is in line with the existing dwelling, this department
does not object to the granting of this second b) variance.
The third c) appeal
proposes the relaxation of Section 102.9(1) “Side Yards” of the Zoning Bylaw
for the minimum side yard setback of 4.90 feet to 4.0 feet. The intent of the
Zoning Bylaw in limiting side yards is to mitigate the impact of massing on
neighbouring properties. In this case the requested variance is a result of the
cellar addition to the existing family dwelling. The upper floor of the
existing dwelling observes the same 4.0 feet side yard setback which was
approved in 1964 prior to the enactment of the Zoning Bylaw. Therefore, the
existing dwelling is considered legal non-conforming with respect to siting.
In summary, as the
requested variance does not have any negative impacts on neighbouring
properties due to massing, this department does not object to the granting of
this third c) variance.
ADJACENT OWNER’S COMMENTS:
No
correspondence was received regarding this appeal.
|
MOVED BY MS. FELKER
SECONDED
BY MR. DHATT
|
|
|
|
THAT
based on the plans submitted, part (a) of this appeal be ALLOWED.
FOR: MS.
FELKER
MR.
NEMETH
OPPOSED: MR.
DHATT
MR.
PEPPARD
This
appeal was DENIED.
|
|
MOVED BY MS. FELKER
SECONDED
BY MR. DHATT
|
|
|
|
THAT
based on the plans submitted, part (b) of this appeal be ALLOWED.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
|
|
MOVED BY MS. FELKER
SECONDED
BY MR. DHATT
|
|
|
|
THAT
based on the plans submitted, part (c) of this appeal be ALLOWED.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
|
No
items of new business were brought forward at this time.
|
MOVED BY MR. DHATT
SECONDED BY MR. PEPPARD
|
|
THAT
this Hearing do now adjourn.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
|
|
The
Hearing adjourned at 7:58 p.m.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
________________________
|
|
|
Mr.
S. Nemeth, CHAIR
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
________________________
|
|
|
Mr.
R. Dhatt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
________________________
|
|
|
Ms.
B. Felker
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
________________________
|
________________________
|
|
Ms.
L. Cichon
ADMINISTRATIVE
OFFICER
|
Mr.
W. Peppard
|
|
|
|