APPELLANT’S SUBMISSION:
Mr. Vern Milani, property owner,
submitted an application to allow for interior alterations, new secondary
suite and new addition to an existing single family dwelling at 5591 Oakland
Street.
Mr. Vern and Ms. Nicole Milani 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. Residences in
this area include a mix of single and two family dwellings, of varying ages
and conditions. This large corner lot, trapezoid shaped, is approximately
159.58 feet wide and 154.52 feet deep along the east (longer) side property
line. The site fronts onto Oakland Street to the south and flanks Elgin Place
to the west. To the north, the site is bordered by a 10.0 foot wide lane
right-of-way, which is undeveloped. Single family dwellings surround the
subject site on all sides. Vehicular access is provided at the southeast tip
of the lot, from the secondary Oakland Street connection, off Banff Place
further to the east. There is a significant grade difference (over 41.0 feet)
from the southwest (front) corner of the site to the northeast (rear) corner,
but the site has been flattened over the years with several terraced areas
supported by retaining walls along the edges.
The subject site is improved with a
larger two storey single family dwelling with cellar and attached garage and
a second smaller one storey single family dwelling, the origins of which go
back to 1950s, prior to the enactment of the Zoning Bylaw in 1965. Over time,
the site and both dwellings have undergone various renovations, including an
addition to the rear of the smaller secondary dwelling (around 1984),
reconstruction of sundeck to the rear of the larger dwelling (around 1986),
an addition to the larger dwelling (around 1997), all of which were subject
of successful appeals to the Board of Variance: BV 2858, BV 3128, BV 4485
respectively. All appeals were related to the fact that the site contains two
single family dwellings. Around 2005, the site was further improved with a
swimming pool and a related accessory (mechanical) space, which were approved
under BLD04-01337.
The BC Local Government Act
regulates that no addition or structural alteration can be made in a building
while the non-confirming use is continued in all or any part of it, except
one permitted by a Board of Variance. Until recently, the subject site
enjoyed the status of legal non-confirming with respect to use: the site
contains two single family dwellings where the R4 District does not permit
two single family dwellings on the same lot.
Around 2017, the smaller dwelling on
the property was largely demolished, with the intent to rebuild, all of which
was carried out without the benefit of a building permit. However, the BC
Local Government Act regulates that if a building or structure, the use of
which does not conform to the provisions of a bylaw, is damaged or destroyed
to the extent of 75% or more of its value above its foundations, such a
structure must not be repaired or reconstructed except for a conforming use in
accordance with the bylaw. In this case, the second single family dwelling
could not be reconstructed with another single family dwelling existing on
the subject lot. The smaller dwelling is currently the subject of an active
Bylaw Code Case.
In attempt to resolve the
unauthorized construction of the second single family dwelling on the subject
site, the applicant is proposing various additions and exterior/interior
alterations, including the addition of a secondary suite and conversion of an
accessory mechanical building into a (mechanical) crawl space. As a result,
three variances are requested in order for the currently pending building
permit application BLD18-00260 to move forward.
The first appeal a) is to vary
Section 6.3(1)(b) - “Distance between Buildings on the same Lot” of the
Zoning Bylaw requirement for the minimum distance between overlapping
exterior walls of the same building from 14.76 feet to 12.5 feet to allow the
new additions and exterior/interior alterations to the existing single family
dwelling.
The Bylaw requires a separation
between overlapping exterior walls of the same building or of any two
buildings in a group on the same lot to ensure that the overall massing of
the building(s) does not have a negative impact on the subject property, as
well as to provide for sufficient outdoor space.
The
second appeal b) is to
vary Section 104.9 – “Front Yard” of the Zoning Bylaw for the minimum front
yard depth from 24.6
feet to 15.63 feet
to allow the new additions 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 preserve a unified streetscape.
The third appeal c) is to vary Section
104.10(2) – “Side Yards” of the Zoning Bylaw requirement for the minimum side
yard width from 11.5 feet to 10.11 feet to allow the new additions to the
existing single family dwelling.
The intent of the Bylaw to require a
side yard is to mitigate the impacts of building massing on neighbouring
properties.
All three requests are related to
the proposed addition of a secondary suite, which would replace the original
second single family dwelling to the east of the main singe family dwelling.
The secondary suite is proposed to be connected to the principal dwelling by
a small corridor link at its west elevation, where the master bedroom exists.
By linking the two structures the proposed secondary suite would became fully
contained within the single family dwelling and therefore, remove the
non-conformity situation of two single family dwellings on a single lot.
With regard to the first variance
a), the overlapping walls do not contain habitable rooms; only one small
window on the interior east elevation (for the secondary suite bathroom) and
two clerestory windows 8.0 feet above floor level, on the interior west
elevation (for the master bedroom ensuite bathroom). These windows would not
overlap directly; so the user’s privacy would not be impacted. Also,
approximately 78.0 square feet of the proposed corridor would have a little
effect on the plentiful outdoor space existing on the subject site.
In view of the above and considering
the relatively small scale of this request to reduce the required wall
separation 14.76 feet by 2.26 feet, this Department does not object to the
granting of this first variance a).
With regard to the second variance
b), the requested 8.97 feet front yard encroachment is a major variance.
However, there are several mitigating factors. The front yard setback is
measured to the southwest corner of the principal building, which is the closest
point to the angled front property line. The front yard setback gradually
increases to the east, up to approximately 31.0 feet at the southeast corner
of the building.
The eastern portion of the principal
building, which is the closest to the front property line, is where the
secondary suite is proposed. This is also, where the original second single
family dwelling existed since approximately 1948. The proposed one storey
massing of the addition would be consistent with the previous structure. Therefore,
this variance would not create a significant change to the existing
conditions.
It should be noted that the subject
site originally observed a much more generous front yard setback, of over
40.0 feet, until the mid-1980’s when improvements of Oakland Street took
place. At that time a large portion of the front yard was acquired by the
City of Burnaby to accommodate the widening and re-alignment of Oakland
Street (from the west-east direction to the angled west-southeast direction).
Vehicular access to the site was also relocated from the Oakland Street
frontage along the south property line (as per the original alignment), to
the east side, at the southeast corner of the lot. As such, the subject site
became legal non-conforming with respect to the front yard setback
requirements. Since the proposed secondary suite would be essentially within
the footprint of the original second dwelling on the subject site, this
variance, if granted, would not increase this non-conformity.
With regard to the broader neighbourhood
context, due to the dropping terrain, the proposed addition, which is at the
lower level than the street level, would be almost entirely (except for the
roof peak area) screened by a mature hedge along the front property line. As
such, the siting of the proposed addition would have a minimal impact on the
existing streetscape.
For all of the reasons stated above,
this Department does not object to the granting of this second variance b).
With regards to the third variance
c), again, the siting and massing of the proposed addition would be
essentially consistent with the original second single family dwelling on the
subject site. As such, there would be no significant change to the existing
massing relationship between the proposed addition and the neighbouring
residence to the west.
It is difficult to assess if the
original second dwelling observed the same non-conforming side yard setback
that has been requested for this addition. According to some City records,
the original second dwelling observed a side yard setback of 15.71 feet on
Elgin Street. However, City aerials do not support these records; it appears
that the location of the addition (which has already commenced construction)
is consistent with the original second dwelling which was set back at
approximately 10.0 - 11.0 feet.
Only the relatively small triangular
area at the upper portion of the roof gable would be visible as viewed from
Elgin Place (west); the reminder of the addition would be screened by a
mature hedge along the east side property line. As a result, little impact is expected
to result from the proposed side yard setback variance.
Considering all of the above and the
relatively small scale of the requested 1.39 foot side yard encroachment,
this Department does not object to the granting of this third c) variance.
ADJACENT OWNER’S COMMENTS:
Correspondence was received from the
residents at 5830 Elgin Place, 5835 Elgin Place, 5850 Elgin Place, 5930 Elgin
Place, 5935 Elgin Place, 5950 Elgin Place, 5975 Elgin Place, and 5855 Elgin
Place opposing the requested variances.
Mr. Peppard, Board Member,
referenced correspondence received regarding the appeal. Correspondence
submitted identifies concerns in regard to the subject property. Based on the
comments submitted, the Board requested additional information from staff
prior to making a decision on the appeal. Arising from discussion, the Board
introduced the following motion:
|