|
|
|
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 November 05 at 1:00 p.m.
|
|
|
|
1.
|
CALL TO ORDER
|
|
|
PRESENT:
|
Ms.
C. Richter, Chair
Mr.
B. Bharaj, Citizen Representative
Mr.
B. Pound, Citizen Representative
|
|
|
|
|
ABSENT:
|
Mr.
G. Clark, Citizen Representative
|
|
|
Mr.
S. Nemeth, Citizen Representative
|
|
|
|
|
STAFF:
|
Ms.
M. Malysz, Development Plan Approvals Supervisor
Ms.
J. Adam, Planning Assistant
Ms.
E. Prior, Administrative Officer
|
|
The Chair for the Board of Variance
called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m.
|
|
MOVED BY MR. B. POUND:
SECONDED BY MR. B. BHARAJ:
|
|
|
|
THAT the Hearing of the Burnaby
Board of Variance held on 2015 October 01 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. 6192
|
WITHDRAWN
|
|
|
|
|
APPELLANT:
|
Ron
Bijok
|
|
|
|
|
REGISTERED OWNER OF PROPERTY:
|
Kevin
Snelgrove and Sabrina Machel
|
|
|
|
|
CIVIC ADDRESS OF PROPERTY:
|
5883
Monarch Street
|
|
|
|
|
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY:
|
Lot
22; District Lot 80; Plan 1798
|
|
This
appeal was WITHDRAWN prior to the Hearing.
|
|
(b)
|
APPEAL
NUMBER:
|
B.V. 6193
|
|
|
|
|
|
APPELLANT:
|
Rosa
Alexander
|
|
|
REGISTERED OWNER OF PROPERTY:
|
Rosina
Alexander
|
|
|
|
|
CIVIC ADDRESS OF PROPERTY:
|
175
Ranelagh Avenue North
|
|
|
|
|
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY:
|
Lot
22; District Lot 189; Plan 4953
|
|
|
|
|
APPEAL:
|
An Appeal for the relaxation of
Sections 105.6(1)(a) and 6.12(3)(a) of the Burnaby Zoning Bylaw which, if
permitted, would allow for the substantive reconstruction of the basement,
main floor and upper floor of an existing single family home at 175 Ranelagh
Avenue North. These would include interior alterations to the basement and
main floor; a new porch, deck and addition to the main floor; and a new upper
floor. The following variances are being requested:
a) the principal building height,
measured from the rear average grade, would be 30.41 feet where a maximum of
29.5 feet is permitted. Note the height measured from the front average
grade would be 28.31 feet, and
b) the side yard setback would be
2.6 feet where a minimum side yard setback of 3.3 feet is required. (Zone R5)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
APPELLANT’S SUBMISSION:
Rosa Alexander submitted an
application to allow for substantive interior and exterior reconstruction of an
existing single family home at 175 Ranelagh Avenue.
Rosa Alexander and Michael
Haig appeared before members of the Board of Variance at the Hearing.
BURNABY PLANNING AND BUILDING
DEPARTMENT COMMENTS:
The
subject site, which is zoned R5 Residential District, is located in the Capitol
Hill neighbourhood, in which the age and condition of single and two-family
dwellings vary. This interior lot, which is approximately 33 ft. wide and 121.4
ft. deep, fronts onto the west side of Ranelagh Avenue North. The subject site
observes a downward slope of approximately 7.3 ft. in the northeast - southwest
direction. Single family
dwellings are located immediately north, south, directly across Ranelagh Avenue North
to the east and directly across the lane to
the west of the subject
site.
The
subject site was originally improved with a two storey single family dwelling
(main floor and basement), built in 1956. In 2014, a building permit
(BLD14-01151) was issued for further improvements to the dwelling, including an
upper floor addition and various exterior/interior alterations to the basement
and main floor. Subsequently, when construction started, a deviation from the
building permit drawings was identified by the City staff. As a result, the
applicant is requesting two variances in order to legalize the unpermitted
construction.
The
first a) appeal proposes a building height of 30.41 ft., measured from the rear
average elevation to the upper floor addition, where a maximum height of 29.5
ft. is permitted for sloping roofs.
The
intent of the Bylaw is to mitigate the massing of new buildings and their
impacts on neighbouring properties.
The
second b) appeal proposes a side yard setback of 2.6 ft. from the north
property line to the existing dwelling, with a further projection for roof
eaves of up to 2.0 ft., where a minimum side yard setback of 3.3 ft. is
required.
The
intent of the Bylaw is to mitigate the impacts of building massing on
neighbouring properties.
In
this case, the existing dwelling observes a north side yard setback of 2.6 ft.,
and is legal-non-conforming with respect to the side yard setback requirement
(3.3 ft.).
The
approved building permit drawings indicate that the non-conforming part of the
dwelling, particularly the outermost north wall and adjacent floor area at the
basement and ground level, were to be retained. However, during construction,
the wall and floor were removed and rebuilt, as they were in poor condition.
The portion of this new floor and wall that encroaches into the required side
yard is approximately 0.7 ft. wide and 31 ft. long, and is the subject of the
second b) appeal.
In
addition, this new wall/floor construction required slightly higher wall studs,
which increased the overall building height. The proposed increase in building height
from the originally approved 29.5 ft. to the constructed 30.41 ft., as viewed
from the rear property line, is the subject of the first a) appeal.
With
respect the second b) variance, the increased side yard encroachment does not
materially change the massing relationship, at the ground floor, between the
existing dwelling and the neighbouring property to the north of the subject
site. In addition, the new upper floor is proposed to be set back an additional
3.25 ft. from the outermost north face of this encroachment area. The resulting
total upper floor setback of 5.85 ft. is well over the minimum side yard
setback requirement of 3.3 ft.
With
respect to the first a) appeal, the proposed height encroachment of 0.91 ft.
would be limited to a very small triangular area at the top fascia board
junction of the upper roof (the small roof over the upper deck would not be
part of this encroachment). In addition, the proposed upper floor is set back
10.18 ft. from the outermost west face of the rear elevation at the ground
level, which further mitigates any impacts. Also, when viewed from the front
property line, the proposed building height of 28.31 ft. is well under the
dimensional height requirement for the R5 District (29.5 ft.).
In
summary, considering the small scale of the proposed side yard and height
encroachments, no significant impacts are expected to neighbouring properties
and the existing streetscape.
In
view of the above, this Department does not object to the granting of the first
a) and second b) variances.
ADJACENT
OWNER’S COMMENTS:
Correspondence was received
from Mr. Michael Wong, concerned that the height variance would block their
view. The writer also expressed concern that allowing this variance would set
a precedent in the neighbourhood.
No further correspondence was received
regarding this appeal.
|
MOVED BY MR. B. POUND:
SECONDED BY MR. B. BHARAJ:
|
|
|
|
THAT
based on the plans submitted part (a) of this appeal be ALLOWED.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
|
|
MOVED BY MR. B. POUND:
SECONDED BY MR. B. BHARAJ:
|
|
|
|
THAT
based on the plans submitted part (b) of this appeal be ALLOWED.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
|
|
MOVED BY MR. B. POUND:
SECONDED
BY MR. B. BHARAJ:
|
|
|
|
THAT the Hearing do now recess until
1:15 p.m.
|
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
The Hearing recessed at 1:08 p.m.
|
MOVED BY MR. B. POUND:
SECONDED
BY MR. B. BHARAJ:
|
|
|
|
THAT the Hearing do now reconvene.
|
CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY
The
Hearing reconvened at 1:15 p.m.
|
(c)
|
APPEAL
NUMBER:
|
B.V. 6194
|
|
|
|
|
|
APPELLANT:
|
Tony
Gill
|
|
|
|
|
REGISTERED OWNER OF PROPERTY:
|
Belltown Homes LTD
and A-Pacific Development LTD
|
|
|
|
|
CIVIC ADDRESS OF PROPERTY:
|
7357
Newcombe Street
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY:
|
Lot
32; District Lot 25; Plan 14945
|
|
|
|
|
APPEAL:
|
An appeal for the relaxation of
Section 6.3.1 of the Burnaby Zoning Bylaw, which, if permitted, would allow
for the construction of a new single family home at 7357 Newcombe Street.
The distance between the principal building and the detached garage would be
0.53 feet where a minimum distance of 14.8 feet is required. (Zone R10)
|
|
|
|
|
A previous Board of Variance (BOV
6177 2015 July 09) denied an appeal requesting the front yard setback of
24.93 feet measured to the foundation where a minimum front yard setback of
40.63 feet is required.
A previous Board of Variance (BOV
6190 2015 September 03) denied an appeal requesting the front yard setback of
33.86 feet measured to the foundation where a minimum front yard setback of
40.63 feet is required; and allowed the distance between the principal
building and the detached garage of 9.75 feet where a minimum distance of
14.8 feet is required.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
APPELLANT’S SUBMISSION:
Tony Gill, Belltown Homes
Ltd and and A-Pacific Development Ltd, submitted an application to allow for
the construction of a new home at 7357 Newcombe Street.
Tony Gill and Inderjit
Dhillon, designer, appeared before members of the Board of Variance at the
Hearing.
BURNABY
PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT COMMENTS:
This property was the
subject of an appeal before the Board on 2015 July 09 (BV6177) and 2015 September 03
(BV6190).
In the 2015 July 09 appeal,
a variance was sought for the construction of a new single family dwelling and
detached garage observing a front yard setback of 24.93 ft., where a front yard
setback of 40.63 ft. is required. This Department did not support this request,
and the Board of Variance denied the appeal.
In the 2015 September 03 appeal, two variances were
sought for the construction of a new single family dwelling with a detached
garage. The first a) appeal was for a distance of 9.75 ft. from the accessory
building to the principal building, where a minimum distance of 14.8 ft. is
required. The second b) appeal was for a front yard setback of 33.86 ft. where
a front yard setback of 40.63 ft. is required. While this Department did not
support the first a) appeal for a reduced distance between the garage and
residence, the Board granted it. Similarly, this Department supported the
request for a reduced front yard setback, but the Board denied the second b)
appeal.
This Department’s comments
on the 2015 September 03 appeal, which also references the 2015 July 09 appeal,
are included as Item 1 in the attached supplementary materials.
Subsequently, in response
to concerns raised by neighbours at the hearing, the applicant has revised the
proposal. The revised design locates the principal building 40.63 ft. from the
front property line, which meets the minimum front yard setback; however, this
is achieved by a further reduction in the distance between the residence and
the garage. Some changes to the windows, sunken patio and detached garage are
also proposed. Otherwise, the revised proposal is similar to that presented in
the 2015 July 09 appeal.
More specifically, the
following relaxation is requested:
The appeal would permit a
distance of 0.53 ft. from the detached garage to the principal building, with a
2.94 ft. roof projection from the principal building, where a minimum distance
of 14.8 ft. is required.
The Bylaw requires a
separation between buildings on the same lot in order to prevent massing
impacts on the occupants of the subject property and neighbouring properties,
as well as to provide for sufficient outdoor living space.
This variance relates
directly to the revised siting of the principal building. In order to achieve
the minimum required front yard setback, the proposed dwelling has been located
6.77 ft. closer to the accessory detached garage.
The siting of the detached
garage remains the same, in the south corner of the rear yard, approximately 4
ft. from the southwest (rear) property line and 4 ft. from the southeast (side)
property line. The detached garage has been reduced in width from 22.6 ft. to
20 ft.; in length from 20 ft. to 19.5 ft.; and in height
from approximately 12.19
ft. to the top of a hip roof to 9.45 ft. high to the top of a flat roof as
viewed from the lane. This reduction in size and height helps mitigate, to a
degree, the impacts of the reduced separation.
The proposed detached
garage contains two parking spaces, accessed off the rear lane, and is
consistent with the existing detached garage immediately to the southeast of
the subject lot.
The 0.53 ft. distance is
measured from the detached garage to the rear deck, which is proposed over the
sunken patio immediately northwest of the garage. The proposed horizontal
overlap between the deck and the garage is only 2.57 ft. The small overlap
area, in this case, would not create substantial impacts, given the openness of
the deck area. However, the proposed location of the deck itself is
questionable. The proposed deck is located over the sunken patio, which is a
primary source of daylight for the proposed secondary suite in the cellar. The
deck would cover almost 2/3 of the sunken patio, which would result in
substantial shading of this area.
In addition, the proposed
distance of 3.43 ft. between the garage and the dwelling, which represents a
dramatic reduction from the previously approved 9.75 ft., is a concern. The
dwelling/garage overlap would be 18.5 ft., which is almost the entire width of
the garage. It is noted that an attempt has been made to minimize impacts on
the occupants of the residence, by removing all windows from the area of
overlap (including the previously proposed two bay windows at the upper floor
of the dwelling). As such, no primary living space would face the garage.
However, with the required separation reduced by 11.37 ft. or 77 %, the
dwelling and garage would effectively appear as a single building form. The
neighbouring property immediately southeast of the subject site would be most
affected by this proposal.
Furthermore, this variance
could be substantially lessened by reducing the proposed two-car garage to a
one-car garage and providing an additional surface parking space to satisfy
parking requirements.
With respect to outdoor
living space, a small yard area would remain to the northwest of the garage, but
would be insufficient to meet the needs of both a primary dwelling unit and a
secondary suite. Additional outdoor space would be available in the sizable
front yard; however, this area would not afford the privacy of a rear yard.
For the above reasons, the
Department cannot support the requested variance.
ADJACENT OWNER’S COMMENTS:
Mr. R. Arseneault, 8249 19th
Avenue, and Mr. D. Grant, 7391 Newcombe Street, appeared before the Board in
opposition to the appeal.
No correspondence was
received regarding this appeal.
|
MOVED BY MR. B. POUND:
SECONDED BY MR. B. BHARAJ:
|
|
|
|
THAT based on the plans submitted
this appeal be ALLOWED.
FOR: MR. B.
BHARAJ
OPPOSED:
MS. C. RICHTER
MR.
B. POUND
DENIED
|
|
(d)
|
APPEAL
NUMBER:
|
B.V. 6195
|
|
|
|
|
|
APPELLANT:
|
Xiao
Jia Hu
|
|
|
|
|
REGISTERED OWNER OF PROPERTY:
|
Yang
and Xiao Hu
|
|
|
|
|
CIVIC ADDRESS OF PROPERTY:
|
4862
Gilpin Court
|
|
|
|
|
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY:
|
Lot
3; District Lot 34; Plan 15142
|
|
|
|
|
APPEAL:
|
An appeal for the relaxation of
Section 105.6(1)(b) of the Burnaby Zoning Bylaw which, if permitted, would
allow for: additions to the basement, main floor and upper floor; interior
alterations/finishing to the basement and main floor; new main porch and
deck; new upper floor deck, and a new basement attached garage at 4862 Gilpin
Court. The following variances are being requested:
a) the principal building height,
measured from the rear average elevation, would be 28.57 feet where a maximum
of 24.3 feet is permitted, and
b) the principal building height,
measured from the front average elevation, would be 27.45 where a maximum of
24.3 feet is permitted. (Zone R5)
|
|
|
|
|
A previous Board of Variance (BOV
6111 2014 June 05) allowed a principal building height of 27.95 feet measured
from the rear yard and 26.83 measured from the front yard, a principal
building depth of 38.75 feet, a front yard setback of 14.08 feet and a rear
yard setback of 7.92 feet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
APPELLANT’S SUBMISSION:
Xiao Jia Hu submitted an
application to allow for additions and interior alterations of an existing home
at 4862 Gilpin Court.
Xiao Jia and Yang Hu appeared
before members of the Board of Variance at the Hearing.
BURNABY
PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT COMMENTS:
This property was the
subject of an appeal before the Board on 2014 June 06 (BV6111). The following variances
were allowed for the construction of new additions to an existing single family
dwelling:
a) a building height of 27.95
ft., measured from the rear average elevation, where a maximum height of 24.3
ft. is permitted.
b) a building height of 26.83
ft., measured from the front average elevation, where a maximum height of 24.3
ft. is permitted.
c) a principal building depth
of 38.75 ft. where a maximum building depth of 30.45 ft. is permitted.
d) a front yard setback of
14.08 ft., where a minimum front yard setback of 19.7 ft. is required.
e) a rear yard setback of 7.92
ft., where a minimum rear yard setback of 24.6 ft. is required.
Subsequently, a building
permit (BLD14-00573) was issued and the construction of various additions and
alterations to the existing dwelling began. When construction progressed to the
framing stage, deviations from the permitted building height were identified by
the City staff. As a result, the applicant is requesting two appeals for a
further relaxation of building height, in attempt to legalize the as-built
construction.
The first a) appeal
proposes a building height of 28.57 ft., measured from the rear average
elevation, where a maximum height of 24.3 ft. is permitted for a flat roof.
The second b) appeal
proposes a building height of 27.45 ft., measured from the front average
elevation, where a maximum height of 24.3 ft. is permitted for a flat roof.
The intent of the Bylaw in
limiting height is to mitigate the massing of new buildings or structures and
their impacts on neighbouring properties.
Both requests propose a
0.62 ft. (7.5 inch) increase to the previously relaxed building heights, as
viewed from the front and rear of the dwelling. This additional overheight area
is generally limited to an approximately 22 ft. by 10 ft. flat roof area. This
area is centrally located at the top of the upper roof at the northern portion of
the existing dwelling, where the new 2 ½ storey addition is being constructed.
Considering the relatively
minor scale of the proposed increase to the granted height variances, this
Department’s comments remain similar to the comments for the 2014 June 06
appeal.
The subject site, which is
zoned R5 Residential District, is located in the Garden Village neighbourhood,
in which the age and condition of single and two-family dwellings vary. This
interior lot, which is approximately 60.9 ft. deep and 115.5 ft. wide, observes
a frontage of approximately 50 ft. along Gilpin Court to the west. Abutting the
subject site to the north, south and around the Gilpin Court cul-de-sac to the
west are single family dwellings, and across the lane to the east are two-family
dwellings. Vehicular access is provided from the Gilpin Court cul-de-sac. The
site observes a downward slope of approximately 6 ft. in the south-north
direction. The subject
site contains a single family dwelling that was constructed in 1968 along with
an attached carport.
The subject lot is unusual
in that it is oriented laterally to its only road frontage, at the terminus of
Gilpin Court along the western property line. It appears that because of this,
the front yard has historically been measured from the shorter northern lot
line, despite its lack of road frontage; and the rear yard has historically
been measured from the southern lot line.
Consequently, the height of
the residence was measured from the average natural grade of the lower of its
north facade or its south facade, rather than from its actual front and rear
elevations, which face Gilpin Court and the rear lane respectively. The height
of the existing one and a half storey dwelling is proximately 18 ft. as
measured from the actual rear elevation.
The proposed height
relaxations are reviewed in the context of the rear elevation facing the lane
(east) and the front elevation facing the Gilpin Court (west). In both cases,
the height calculations are based on the existing natural grade at the rear
elevation and front elevation respectively. The 6 ft. grade change from the
rear to the front of the subject site contributes to the excess height of the
building.
With respect to the first
a) variance, the proposed 4.27 ft. (previously 3.65 ft.) height encroachment,
as viewed from the rear elevation, consists of the upper roof of the proposed
addition, above the approximate mid-point of the fascia board. Considering that
views from the neighbouring properties across the lane to the east are
predominantly oriented to the east, it is not expected that the additional
massing created by the proposed height encroachment would negatively impact these
neighbouring sites.
With respect to the second
b) variance, the proposed 3.15 ft. (previously 2.53 ft.) height encroachment,
as viewed from the front elevation, consists of the upper roof of the proposed
addition above the fascia board as well as a small decorative dormer in the
center. This area of encroachment is relatively limited.
Considering the distant
siting of the upper roof from the neighbouring properties to the north and to
the southwest, and the absence of any direct conflict with views from these
properties, it is not expected that the additional massing created by the
proposed height encroachment would negatively impact these neighbouring sites.
Further, the proposed 4 in
12 roof pitch would result in a gently sloping design that minimizes the roof
massing above the fascia board level, as viewed from the rear and front
elevations.
Given the incremental
nature of the proposed height encroachments, which increase the previously
granted height relaxation by only 0.62 ft., and the limited impacts of this increase on
the neighbouring properties and the existing streetscape, this Department does
not object to the granting of both first a) and second b) variances.
ADJACENT OWNER’S COMMENTS:
Correspondence was received
from a resident expressing concern regarding loss of privacy in his home and
backyard as well as the enjoyment of his home due to the significant
renovations being done to 4862 Gilpin Court.
No further correspondence
was received regarding this appeal.
|
MOVED BY MR. B. POUND:
SECONDED BY MR. B. BHARAJ:
|
|
|
|
THAT
based on the plans submitted part (a) of this appeal be ALLOWED.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
|
|
MOVED BY MR. B. POUND:
SECONDED BY MR. B. BHARAJ:
|
|
|
|
THAT
based on the plans submitted part (b) of this appeal be ALLOWED.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
|
|
4.
|
NEW BUSINESS
No items of new business were
brought forward at this time.
|
|
|
MOVED BY MR. B. POUND:
SECONDED BY MR. B. BHARAJ:
|
|
|
|
THAT
this Hearing do now adjourn.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
The
Hearing adjourned at 1:58 p.m.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
________________________
|
|
|
Ms.
C. Richter
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
________________________
|
|
|
Mr.
B. Bharaj
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
________________________
|
|
|
Mr.
B. Pound
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
________________________
|
|
|
Ms.
E. Prior
ADMINISTRATIVE
OFFICER
|
|