Board of Variance
Minutes
Present:
Regrets:
Chairperson - M. Cooper
S. Round
A. Pease
D. Kenny
P. Sandhar
TABLED APPEALS
B.
NEW APPEALS
1.
Staff Present:
B. Endersby
L. Pitcairn
L. Luaifoa
A.
Council Chamber
City Hall
14245 - 56 Avenue
Surrey, B.C.
WEDNESDAY, JULY 11, 2012
Time: 9:00 a.m.
File:
0360-20
Manager, Residential Section - Planning & Dev.
Planner, North Surrey Division - Planning & Dev.
Secretary
Appeal No. 12-19 - Mitchell
For permission to relax the front yard setback requirement (special building setback
line for 16 Avenue due to future road allowance) from 7.5 m. to 5.0 m.to allow the
construction of a new dwelling at 13080 – 16 Avenue.
It was
Moved by D. Kenny
Seconded by A. Pease
That the Board of Variance receive the
following correspondence:
1. Letter of support from Floyd and Frances Marlatt, 13072 – 16 Avenue
2. Letter with no objection of proposed front yard setback to 5.0 m, Ken and
Shirley Howell, 1591 131 Street
Carried
Adam and Anna Mitchell were in attendance as the Appellants.
Kevin Dornan, O’Durnin Developments Ltd. was also in attendance as the Agent
to the Appellants.
The Manager, Residential Section, confirmed the following site information:


This lot is located within the Single Family Residential (RF) zone. 16th
Avenue is the fronting street which is designated as an Arterial Road.
Part 7 of the Zoning By-law “Special Building Setbacks” addresses the
minimum setbacks required from the centre line of designated roads. 16th
Avenue which is designated as an Arterial Road on the Surrey Major Road
Page 1
h:\bov\minutes\2012\min bov 2012 07 11.docx
. 09/27/12 12:39 PM
Board of Variance - Minutes


July 11, 2012
Allowance Map was approved by Council in March 2011 and requires that
an ultimate setback baseline be established at 15 meters from the centreline
of 16th Avenue. The setback baseline from the centreline of 16th Avenue is
currently 10.058 metres.
The minimum setback required for a front yard setback for a principle
building in the RF zone is 7.5 meters.
The applicant is proposing a front yard setback of 5.0 metres for the
addition to the existing principle dwelling from the ultimate property line.
The Agent provided the following comments concerning hardship:
 When the home was originally designed, the Appellant was under the
impression the footprint could be used and after demolishing the house;
learned more property needed to be surrendered to the City which resulted
in the loss of the backyard.
 Moving the house further back will cause the front yard to be bigger than the
backyard. With two children, it would be safer for the children to play in the
backyard.
 Space was taken from the front and side of the property to accommodate a
lane. There is a registered covenant and if the lane is ever developed, it
would have to be moved to the back.
 More than 90% of properties are at the same setback and the Appellant
would like to be able to stay in line with the neighbours rather than further
back.
 The hardship is there is no space for a pool.
There were no neighbours present to speak to this appeal.
Members of the Board made the following comments regarding the variance:
 A hardship is caused due to the inability to fully utilize the lot and the
imposition of the future road widening setback reduces the usability of the
lot which is already compromised by the rights of ways.
It was
2.
Moved by S. Round
Seconded by D. Kenny
That Appeal 12-19 be allowed
Carried
Appeal No. 12-20 - Laframboise
For permission to relax the rear yard setback requirement from 7.5 m. to 6.0 m. to
allow the construction of a small addition to the rear of the dwelling at
6447 – 129 A Street.
Nancy Laframboise was in attendance as the Appellant.
h:\bov\minutes\2012\min bov 2012 07 11.docx
. 6/1/95 1:09 PM
Page 2
Board of Variance - Minutes
July 11, 2012
Tara St. Jean, Homestar Design, was also in attendance as the Agent to the
Appellant.
The Manager, Residential Section, confirmed the following site information:
 The lot is located within the RF zone intended for single family dwellings.
 The RF zone requires a minimum rear yard setback of 7.5 m. There is a
variable setback that does permit 50% of the building to be at 6 meters when
50% of the building is at 8.5 m; in this situation sundecks can be at 7.5 m.
 The Applicant is proposing a rear yard setback of 6.0 m. to the proposed
addition.
It was
Moved by D. Kenny
Seconded by P. Sandhar
That the following correspondence be
received:
1. Letter from Homestar Design Ltd.
2. Letter of Authorization for Tara St. Jean to act as the Appellant's Agent.
Carried
The Appellant provided the following comments concerning hardship:




There is limited cabinetry in the kitchen. The laundry room is being used
as a pantry.
The addition will centralize everything in the kitchen thus improving the
value of the home.
There is a hardship due to the kitchen not being functional because of the
layout.
The neighbours have been consulted with and have not expressed any
concerns.
There were no neighbours present to speak to this appeal.
Members of the Board made the following comments regarding the variance to
relieve hardship:
 The inconvenience of the small living space is a hardship.
 The application has very little impact on neighbours; therefore, there is no
reason for it not to be allowed.
It was
h:\bov\minutes\2012\min bov 2012 07 11.docx
. 6/1/95 1:09 PM
Moved by A. Pease
Seconded by D. Kenny
That Appeal No. 12-20 be allowed
Carried
Page 3
Board of Variance - Minutes
3.
July 11, 2012
Appeal No. 12-21 - Watkins
For permission to relax the rear yard setback requirement from 7.5 m. to 3.0 m.and
to relax the fence height requirement from 1.0 m and 1.2 m. to 2.4 m. to allow the
construction of a new home with fence at 6491 – 144 Street.
Shaun and Kaulani Watkins were in attendance as the Appellants.
The Manager, Residential Section, confirmed the following site information:

Rear Yard Setback:
This corner lot is located within the Half-Acre Residential Gross Density
Zone (RHG). The lot fronts 144 Street, which is an existing arterial road and
it flanks 65 Avenue.

Part 7 of the Zoning By-law "Special Building Setbacks" deal with minimum
setbacks required from the centerline of designated roads. 144 Street which
is designated as an existing arterial road on the Surrey Major Road
Allowance Map which was approved by Council in March 2011 and requires
that an ultimate setback baseline be established at 15 metres from the
centerline of 144 Street which is 2.808 metres within the existing front
property line.

The minimum required rear yard setback, in the RH-G Zone, for a principal
building, is required to be a minimum of 3.08 meters.

Fence Height:
The zoning bylaw states, any fence in any residential zone shall not be:
i.
Higher than 1.2 meters when it is located within a required front
yard of side yard on flanking street.
ii. Higher than 1.0 meter in an area bounded by the intersecting lot
lines at a highway corner and a straight line joining points 9 meters
along said lot lines from their points of intersection.

The applicant is proposing to build a fence along 144 Street (front yard)
and 65 Avenue (flanking street) at a height of 2.4 metres.
The Appellant provided the following comments concerning hardship:



h:\bov\minutes\2012\min bov 2012 07 11.docx
. 6/1/95 1:09 PM
The hardship is clear; 144 Street is a very busy road and noisy. The setback
will assist in blocking excessive noise from cars and saw mills across the
street. The house will be located towards the rear the lot.
There is significant unpleasant activity on 144 Street; the frontage of this
lot. Drug paraphernalia and garbage is often thrown in the yard.
A 3.0 m. rear yard setback would be consistent with the neighbour's lot to
the rear. The narrow side of the house becomes the frontage which is 144
Street and the rear yard is the side of the driveway which separates the two
yards.
Page 4
Board of Variance - Minutes




July 11, 2012
The original proposal was for a concrete fence similar to the neighbours;
however, a restrictive covenant prevents driveway access to 144 Street. A
solid fence would have created lot access issues. Also, a solid concrete
fence would be expensive and too permanent for the future road widening.
The family has owned the property since 1913 and would not install a fence
that was not fitting to the neighbours. The side neighbour has been
consulted with and has no objections.
An 8 ft. fence would be ideal to maximize reduction of noise levels and to
reduce the littering; however, a 6ft. fence would suffice.
The hardship is not being able to build the house in a location that makes
the best use of the lot and ensures maximum safety and privacy.
Members of the Board made the following comments regarding the variance:


Concerned with the proposed 8 ft. fence as it is too high for a front yard.
There is significant traffic on 144 Street. This application requires
something different than the by-law allows. There are extenuating
circumstances in being able to enjoy the property. The property would be
more liveable if the rear yard setback was reduced to 3.0 m. Given the fact
the adjacent properties have 6 ft. fences; the Board may consider approval
of a 6 ft. fence.
Staff noted that the Wills Variation Act issue has been resolved. The title was an
older copy and since, the title has been transferred (May 23, 2012) nearly 7 months
after the probate date of October, 2011. The owner may apply for a correction on
the title.
It was
Moved by D. Kenny
Seconded by P. Sandhar
That the email correspondence stating the
title had been transferred to Shaun and Kaulani Watkins on May 23, 2012 be
received.
Carried
Mike Krug, 14375 65 Avenue expressed concern with the height of the fence stating
it would be imposing at 2.5 m. There was no concern with the 3.0 m. setback for
house placement.
It was
Moved by S. Round
Seconded by P. Sandhar
That the Board of Variance approve the
3.0 m. rear yard setback and a 6 ft. fence.
Carried with D. Kenny and M. Cooper
opposed.
4.
Appeal No. 12-22 - Taylor
For permission to relax the rear yard setback requirement from 1.8 m. to 1.0 m. and
to relax the front yard setback requirement from 18 m. to 14.85 m. to allow
construction of an in-ground swimming pool at 13462 – 14 Avenue.
h:\bov\minutes\2012\min bov 2012 07 11.docx
. 6/1/95 1:09 PM
Page 5
Board of Variance - Minutes
July 11, 2012
Donald Taylor was in attendance as the Appellant.
The Manager, Residential Section, confirmed the following site information:




This lot is located within the Single Family Residential (RF) zone.
14 Avenue is the fronting street and there is a lane along the west property
line.
The minimum setback required for a swimming pool in the front yard is
18.0 meters and the minimum required rear setback is 1.8 meters.
The applicant is proposing a front yard setback of 14.85 meters and a rear
yard setback of 1.0 meters for the proposed swimming.
The Appellant provided the following comments concerning hardship:



The property is irregular in shape and on the northwest corner of the lot
there is a curve that comes down. The front yard setback is calculated from
the lowest point; the crescent and not the front property line as the
Appellant thought when applying for the building permit.
The ideal location for the pool is on the west of the lot which would be less
intrusive to neighbours and that area receives a good amount of sun.
The wife suffers from osteoarthritis in both hips and will require hip
replacement surgery. Swimming is good exercise as well as helps relieve
pain. The Appellant's had a pool at their previous house as well and if the
family has to comply with the current zoning, the pool cannot be built
causing hardship to the health of the wife. The family did their due
diligence and are requesting to have the ability to build the much needed
pool.
Members of the Board made the following comments regarding the variance:

The appeal should be considered based on the continued welfare of the
wife and the fact that the application will not impact any neighbours
negatively.
It was
Moved by D. Kenny
Seconded by P. Sandhar
That the following correspondence be
received:
1. Letter of support, Albert and Sigrid Coil, 13461 Marine Drive
2. Letter of support, William and Heather Michaluk, 13453 Marine Drive
3. Letter from Appellants, Donald Taylor and Clancey Elliott
Carried
It was
h:\bov\minutes\2012\min bov 2012 07 11.docx
. 6/1/95 1:09 PM
Moved by D. Kenny
Seconded by P. Sandhar
That Appeal No. 12-22 be allowed
Carried
Page 6
Board of Variance - Minutes
5.
July 11, 2012
Appeal No. 12-23 - Hayre
For permission to relax the front yard setback requirement (special building setback
line for 64 Avenue due to future road allowance) from 7. 5 m. to 6.0 m.to allow the
construction of a new dwelling at 18303 – 64 Avenue.
The Appellant altered the front yard setback requirement to read 7.5 m. instead of
9.0 m. and initialled the changes on the original application.
* This change did not affect the application.
Gurinder Dhaliwal was in attendance as the Agent.
The Manager, Residential Section, confirmed the following site information:




This lot is located within the Single Family Residential (RF) zone. The
South (front) property line flanks 64 Avenue which is designated as an
Arterial Road.
Part 7 of the Zoning By-law "Special Building Setbacks" deals with
minimum setbacks required from the centerline of designated roads. 64
Avenue which is designated as an Arterial Road on the Surrey Major Road
Allowance Map was approved by Council in March 2011 and requires that
an ultimate setback baseline be established at 15 meters from the centerline
of 64 Avenue. The setback baseline from the centerline of 64 Avenue is
currently 13.5 meters.
The minimum front yard setback required for a principal building, in the
RF zone is 7.5 meters. The above requirement for the ultimate setback line
adds 1.5 meters (15.0 – 13.5) to the required front yard setback, making it 9.0
meters.
The applicant is proposing a front yard setback of 6.0 metres from the
existing property line and 3.5 meters from the ultimate property line, for
the principal building.
The Agent provided the following comments concerning hardship:




h:\bov\minutes\2012\min bov 2012 07 11.docx
. 6/1/95 1:09 PM
The original owner purchased the property and was not aware of the
setbacks.
The intent was to build a house up to 3500 sq. ft. and at the time of
purchase of the property, there was no right of way. With the new right of
way the housing measurements were decreased to approximately 2900 sq.
ft.
The house has already been condensed too much. With the setbacks, the
lot does not provide a proper backyard or a good size driveway. The
driveway will be short and the front yard will be bigger; however, is located
on a busy road which is not safe for children. The larger backyard is
required.
All the homes in the area have been constructed with all the roads in place
and service connections have been provided.
Page 7
Board of Variance - Minutes
July 11, 2012
Members of the Board made the following comments regarding the variance:

The hardship is the utilization on the portion of the lot they are allowed to
build on.
It was
C.
Moved by S. Round
Seconded by P. Sandhar
That Appeal No. 12-22 be allowed
Carried
ADOPTION OF MINUTES
It was
Moved by D. Kenny
Seconded by P. Sandhar
That the minutes of the Board of Variance
meeting of June 13, 2012 be approved.
Carried
D.
OTHER COMPETENT BUSINESS
1.
E.
The notification letters were approved by the Board and initialled by the Chair.
NEXT MEETING
The next meeting of the Board of Variance will be held on Wednesday, September 12,
2012 at 9:00 a.m.
F.
ADJOURNMENT
The Board of Variance meeting adjourned at 11:30 a.m.
_____________________________________
Losa Luaifoa, Secretary
h:\bov\minutes\2012\min bov 2012 07 11.docx
. 6/1/95 1:09 PM
______________________________________
Marie Cooper - Chairperson
Page 8