|
APPELLANT’S SUBMISSION:
Mr. Lawrence Higa, on behalf of the
property owners, submitted an application for an addition and alteration to
the existing detached garage.
Mr. Higa and Mr. Soriano appeared
before members of the Board of Variance.
BURNABY
PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT COMMENTS:
The subject site, which
is zoned R2 Residential District, is located in the Sperling-Broadway
neighbourhood, in
which the age and condition of single family dwellings vary. This interior lot, approximately 73.4 feet wide and 153.0
feet long, fronts onto Sperling Avenue to the west. The subject site abuts single
family lots on all four sides. Vehicular access to the subject site is
provided via Sperling Avenue; there is no lane access. The site is relatively
flat with a downward slope of approximately 9.5 feet from the rear to the
front.
The subject property is
improved with a single family dwelling and an accessory “workshop” building,
originally built in 1949. The site was further improved with various
alterations and additions to the existing dwelling around 1979, which were
the subject of two appeals before the Board: on 1979 May 04 (BV 1936) and
1979 June 07 (BV 1953).
In both appeals a variance was sought to allow the alterations and
additions to
the existing
dwelling,
observing the rear yard setback of 19.5 feet proposed in the first appeal
(BV 1936),
and observing
the
rear yard setback of 24.0
feet proposed in the second appeal (BV 1953), where a minimum rear yard
setback of 30.0 feet was required. The Board denied
the first appeal and allowed the second appeal.
Currently, the subject site is in
early stages of construction in accordance with the building permit
BLD18-00820, issued on 2018 December 17, for a second floor addition and
further interior and exterior alterations to the existing dwelling. No
changes were proposed to the existing accessory building, which would serve
as a detached single car garage to the existing dwelling.
Now the applicant
proposes to enlarge the existing accessory building, which would serve as a
detached double car garage (in tandem) to the existing dwelling. As a result,
two variances are requested in order for this change to be added to the works
approved
under the current building permit.
The first a) 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 4.2 feet to
allow the addition to the existing accessory building (detached garage).
The Bylaw requires a separation
between a principal building and a detached garage on the same lot 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 space.
The second b) appeal is to vary
Section 102.9(1) – “Side Yards” of the Zoning Bylaw requirement for the
minimum side yard width from 4.9 feet to 3.9 feet to allow the addition to the
existing accessory building (detached garage).
The intent of the Bylaw
to require a side yard is to mitigate the impacts of building massing on
neighbouring properties.
Both
variances are related to the unusual siting of the existing buildings on the
subject site; the existing dwelling and the existing accessory building are
located “side-by-side”, rather than “front-to-back”, which is the most common
arrangement. Further, the principal building observes the front yard setback
of 75.6 feet, which is almost a half of the subject lot’s depth.
The existing
accessory building, approximately 11.98 feet wide by 29.56 feet long, is
located within the generous northern side yard (20.79 feet), approximately
2.1 feet away from the north (side) property line which is legal
non-conforming with respect to the required side yard of the Zoning Bylaw. It
is also 24.55 feet away from the east (rear) property line. This existing
placement results in the 22.31 feet overlap where the distance between two
buildings is only approximately 6.71 feet.
The subject
addition, 12.0 feet wide by 18.5 feet long, is proposed in front of the
existing accessory structure and slightly off, by 1.87 feet, to the south.
This proposed addition would observe a north side yard setback of 3.9 feet
(which is the subject of the second appeal), which is larger than the
existing setback by 1.87 feet. The proposed addition will also require the
same reduced distance of 4.2 feet between the principal building and the
detached garage (which is the subject of the first appeal). The “offset” area
is proposed to continue along the south face of the existing building by
additional 11.1 feet; this would result in a distance of 29.6 feet where the
reduced separation between two buildings would occur.
With respect
to the first a) variance, since the principal dwelling has only small windows
(a living room window in the basement and a bathroom window on the main
floor) facing the proposed addition, minor impacts from this variance are
expected on the occupants of the subject residence.
Furthermore,
this appeal would not reduce the green area available on this site; the
garage addition is proposed over the paved area which would serve as
vehicular access to the existing detached garage. As such, the requested relaxation
would have little impact with respect to outdoor
space.
With respect to the
second b) variance, given the proposed location of the garage addition,
outside of the rear yard, the addition is subject to the side yard setback
requirement for a principal building in R2 Residential District.
The Bylaw does not
permit accessory buildings in a required front or side yard, except as
provided for in Section 6.6 “Accessory Buildings and Uses”. This section
requires an accessory building to be located between the rear building line
and the rear lot line, in which case the Bylaw permits an accessory building
to be set back at least 3.94 feet from the side property line.
Further, when an
accessory building is situated within the rear 29.53 feet of the lot and not
less than 70.54 feet from the street, the setback from the side lot line can
be reduced to nil. In this case however, the proposed garage addition would
be located behind the rear building line and to the north (side) building
face. The proposed addition would overlap the neighbouring detached garage
that is sited close to their shared north property line. Therefore, little
massing impacts are expected on the neighbouring property to the north.
With respect to both
variances, it is recognized that other design options could be considered.
For example: according to the submitted drawings, the principal building
observes a rear yard setback of 31.0 feet, excluding the existing 12.25 feet
deep rear deck (the existing cover over the deck is to be removed). As such,
there is room behind the existing accessory building, within the rear yard,
where an addition to the existing garage could be proposed without a request
for a side yard variance and with a minor variance only for the distance
between two buildings on the same lot.
The proposed relaxations
would not create negative massing impacts on the neighbouring properties and
the subject site. It appears also, that the proposal would preserve the existing
rear yard, which is already substantially reduced considering the siting of
the principal building.
In summary, considering
the existing site conditions and the lack of impacts on the neighbouring
properties and the subject site; this Department does not object to the
granting of the first a) and the second b) appeal.
ADJACENT OWNER’S COMMENTS:
Correspondence was received from the
resident at 2110 Sperling Avenue having no objection to the proposed
variances.
|