|
APPELLANT’S SUBMISSION:
Mr. Tony Zaurrini, contractor, submitted
an application for the construction of his client’s new home.
Mr. Zaurrini appeared before members
of the Board of Variance.
BURNABY PLANNING AND BUILDING
DEPARTMENT COMMENTS:
The subject site is located in the
Capitol Hill District, in an R2 neighbourhood where the ages and conditions
of the single family dwellings vary. This interior lot measures 89.99 feet in
width and 121.32 feet in depth. On the west, the site fronts onto Ellesmere
Avenue North, and vehicular access is taken from the rear lane to the east.
Single family dwellings abut the property to the north and south, and west
across Ellesmere Avenue North, and across the rear lane to the east. The site
observes a downward slope of approximately 36.00 feet from the front to the
rear property line. The slight upward slope of 2.32 feet extends from the
north to the south across the Ellesmere Avenue North frontage. There is a
similar north-south upwards slope of 6.37 feet at the property line along the
lane.
The subject lot has been redeveloped
with a new single family dwelling and detached two-car garage. The initial
Building Permit application (BP 14-01058), which was approved in July 2015,
did not show any retaining walls in the front yard: the ground was bermed up
from the main floor level at Elev. 579.70’ over a distance of approximately 34.00
feet to the front property line at Elev. 588.74’. In the summer of 2017, the
Building Inspector saw that retaining walls had been constructed which were
not shown on the approved Building Permit plans, and the applicant was
referred to the Board of Variance. Site visits by City staff in July 2017
show that the retaining wall was constructed, and then fill was added to the
City boulevard over time. Metal fence sections were added to the top of the
retaining wall between July 2017 and January 2018.
The first a) appeal would permit a
fence that was constructed without being shown on the building permit
drawings. The fence height measures up to 10.17 feet, as measured from the
original, natural grade in the required front yard where a maximum fence
height of 3.51 feet is permitted.
The fence has been constructed on
top of a retaining wall at the front property line on Ellesmere Avenue North
that is the subject of appeal b). The height of the fence is measured from
the average natural grade along the front property line, which results in an
overall fence height of 10.17 feet.
The retaining wall at the property
line was constructed because the applicant filled the City boulevard to a
maximum height of 5.40 feet at the front property line. The depth of fill tapers
upwards to the edge of the paved road over the road right-of way which is
approximately 23.00 feet wide in front of the subject property. (The
unapproved fill on City property is a separate issue from the subject of this
variance; it is mentioned to account for the construction of the over-height
retaining wall at the front property line, which is part of the overall fence
height.)
The intent of the Zoning Bylaw in
limiting the heights of fences and/or retaining walls to a maximum of 3.51
feet in the required front yard is to ensure unified “open” front yards and
to limit the massing or other impacts of such structures on neighbouring
properties.
As seen from Ellesmere Avenue North,
the top 2.00 to 3.00 feet of the concrete retaining wall is visible The metal
is attached to the top of the retaining wall which is articulated with four
stone clad pillars. From the street, with the additional fill placed on the
public road allowance, the fence and top section of the retaining wall appear
to be approximately 4.50 feet high. From the inside the property, the fence
and retaining wall height measures 10.75 feet. (The existing natural grade is
just behind the top of the retaining wall that is 10.00 feet parallel to the
first one.)
The overall fence height is the
result of artificially manipulating the grades: by raising the level of the
grade in the public road allowance by up to 5.40 feet, and by excavation on
the subject property to create a wider terrace at the base of the wall.
Combined, these design choices require nine additional stair risers to access
the Ellesmere Avenue entry from the house. (It would have required 14 stair
risers to access the former existing natural grade in this location from the
terrace; now 23 stair risers are required.)
If the grades at the property had
not been manipulated, it would have been possible to have a 3.51 feet fence
at the property line. However, as the fence height includes the height of the
retaining wall, the two cannot be separated. The existing fence height appeal
results from a design choice to re-contour the property without obtaining the
necessary Zoning Bylaw approvals. As such, the fence defeats the intent of
the Bylaw to regulate the appearance of front yards and the massing at
property lines. In addition, it is a major variance that has been requested.
Although the site has topographical
constraints, these constraints are shared by many properties on the east side
of Ellesmere Avenue North, and therefore do not present a unique hardship. As
such, the implications of the proposed variance on future development of the
neighbourhood must be considered. In the broader context, the piecemeal
granting of variances, particularly when they are already constructed,
undermines the integrity of the Bylaw. For this reason, this Department
cannot support the granting of the first a) appeal.
The second b) appeal would permit
two retaining walls which were not shown on the approved Building Permit
drawings. They would measure up to 6.60 feet in height as measured from the original
natural grade in the required front yard, where a maximum retaining wall
height of 3.51 feet is permitted.
The first retaining wall runs in a
north-south direction at the front property line. It measures up to 6.60 feet
where a maximum retaining wall height of 3.51 feet is permitted.
The second wall is located ten feet
behind the first, and parallel to the front property line. It measures up to
5.75 feet where a maximum retaining wall height of 3.51 feet is permitted.
The intent of the Zoning Bylaw in
limiting the heights of retaining walls to a maximum of 3.51 feet in the
required front yard is to ensure unified “open” front yards and to limit the
massing or other impacts of such structures on neighbouring properties.
Building Permit application (BP
14-01058), which was approved in July 2015, did not show any retaining walls
in the front yard: the ground was bermed up from the main floor level at
Elev. 579.70’ over a distance of approximately 34.00 feet to the front
property line at Elev. 588.74’. As noted in the discussion of the first
appeal, the first retaining wall is the result raising the level of the grade
in the public road allowance by up to 5.40 feet. The second retaining wall
was built to create a wider terrace. Now the front yard has been excavated
down to the main floor level (Elev. 579.70’) to create a walk-out terrace
that varies from 12.00 to 19.00 feet wide across the width of the house,
where the approved Building Permit drawings showed a 7.00 feet deep x 29.0
feet wide terrace.
Both retaining walls in the front
yard are design choices resulting from a desire to re-contour the property
without the necessary approvals. The retaining walls were not required in
order to build this particular house design, as the first approved Building
Permit drawings demonstrate. It is also noted that the neighbours on both
sides of the subject lot, who have houses on similar slopes, do not have
retaining walls in the front yards. The 2014 aerial photograph (attached)
shows how the topography of the subject site once followed the natural grade
of the slope, without any retaining walls in the front yard.
In October 2017, the applicant was
advised by the Building Department Plan Checker, after consultation with the
Planning Department, to mitigate the effects of the retaining walls before
making an appeal to the Board of Variance. The applicant was advised that the
retaining walls should be modified with an improved quality of concrete and
to soften the appearance of the walls with shrubs, vines and hanging plants.
However, this Board of Variance application does not have a landscape plan
that would soften the appearance of the retaining walls with shrubbery or
hanging vines. The site plan shows two large graveled terraces, approximately
27.00 feet x 24.30 feet and 16.50 feet x 24.30 feet on the north side of the
house, adjacent to 216 Ellesmere Avenue North. These two gravel terraces
emphasize the retaining walls, instead of softening their appearance.
The first non-conforming retaining
wall was constructed in order to support fill that was placed without
approval on the public road allowance. The second non-conforming wall, if it
had been presented on the building permit plans, could have been reviewed and
modified to comply with the Bylaw. In conclusion, these two retaining walls,
which were constructed without approvals, are major variances that defeat the
intent of the Bylaw to regulate the massing of structures in the front yard.
As such, this Department does not support the granting of the second b)
appeal.
The third c) appeal is to vary
Section 6.14(5)(b) “Fences” of the Zoning Bylaw from 5.91 feet to a maximum
of 17.25 feet for heights of constructed retaining walls located to the rear
of the required front yard.
The intent of the Bylaw is to mitigate
the massing or other impacts of new buildings or structures on neighbouring
properties.
The approved Building Permit site
plan (BP 14-01058) showed an existing 5.96 feet retaining wall at the north
east corner of the rear property line which decreased to 3.99 feet at a point
50.00 feet south, where the proposed garage was located. Behind the existing
retaining wall, the property sloped upwards to the house without further
terracing.
Now there are two parallel
non-conforming retaining walls in the rear of the required front yard, where
a maximum retaining wall height of 5.91 feet is permitted. Beginning at the lane: the 5.96 feet retaining
wall at the northeast property line has been replaced by a new 8.00 feet wall
that tapers to 6.00 feet in height where it meets the garage wall. A 9 feet 7
inches retaining wall has been constructed at the southeast property line
where the retaining wall turns, providing a wall that supports a concrete
stairway. In this case, the height calculation is based on the existing
natural grade at the lane elevation, which begins at 548.41 feet at the
northeast corner and rises to 554.78 feet at the southeast corner of the
property.
The first retaining wall supports a
22.00 feet deep x 39.00 feet wide grassed terrace. Behind the terrace is the
second retaining wall that measures 17.10 feet (as measured from the lane)
and which extends from a concrete stairway at the northeast property line to
a concrete stairway at the southeast property line. The 17.10 feet high
retaining wall supports a 22.00 feet wide patio that extends across the width
of the property.
The two parallel sets of retaining
walls present a stark and imposing appearance when viewed from the lane. They
constitute major variances that defeat the intent of the Bylaw to mitigate
the impacts of the massing of new buildings or structures on neighbouring
properties.
Although the site has topographical
constraints, these constraints are shared by many properties on the east side
of Ellesmere Avenue North, and therefore do not present a unique hardship. As
such, the implications of the proposed variance on future development of the
neighbourhood must be considered. In the broader context, the piecemeal
granting of variances, particularly when they are already constructed,
undermines the integrity of the Bylaw. For this reason, this Department
cannot support the granting of this major variance appeal c).
ADJACENT OWNER’S COMMENTS:
No submissions were
received regarding this appeal.
|