STAFF REPORT: Development Variance Permit No. 2016/10 - 107 Meadow Park Lane

DEVELOPMENT VARIANCE PERMIT – 107 MEADOW PARK LANE

RECOMMENDATION

THAT Council not approve Development Variance Permit 2016/10.

CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER’S COMMENTS

I concur with the recommendation.

DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES’ COMMENTS

I concur with the recommendation.

PURPOSE OF REPORT

The purpose of this report is to present the application for a Development Variance Permit (DVP) for 107 Meadow Park Lane within an R-1: Detached Residential (Large Lot) zoning:

• Variance to the maximum floor area from 372m² to 420m²

The applicant wishes to attach a 90m² secondary suite to the rear of the house. The addition will increase the total floor area to 419m² on the property. The total Floor Space Ratio for the property is proposed to be at 0.31, whereas the maximum permitted in the R-1 zone is 0.42. The lot coverage proposed is 23%, whereas the maximum permitted in the zone is 40%.

BACKGROUND

The property is a large 1350 sq. m. detached dwelling located adjacent to an agricultural property in Saanich to the north, and neighboured by two similar large-lot, detached dwellings to the east and west. The applicants wish to add a secondary suite to the house by way of an addition in the rear yard. The house has an existing secondary suite above the garage which must be removed should the variance be approved. The applicants’ desire is to provide an at-grade suite for aging parents who would have trouble with accessing the existing suite, which is not on the main floor.

To enable the construction of the suite addition, as per the attached arborists’ statement, a Garry Oak should be removed from the property. There is also a 10m deep covenant area extending across the rear of the property, required to be left in a natural state.

PROJECT INFORMATION

Proposal

The property is subject to the requirement to obtain a Development Variance Permit (DVP) pursuant to Division 9 of the Local Government Act. This DVP focuses on the consideration of the proposed variance impacting the use and enjoyment of the adjacent properties.

The applicant has submitted the following information in support of their application:

• Applicant’s Statement – Applicant – September 28, 2015
• Site Survey (Island Land Surveying) – January 6, 2016
• Building Plans and Elevations – Burrows Holdings Ltd – March 1, 2016
• Letter of support from neighbours
• Arborists’ report

The proposed Development Variance Permit addresses the following aspects:

• Variance to the maximum floor area from 372m² to 420m²

Issues and Analysis

New information presented since Committee of the Whole surrounds the Garry Oak tree. While the removal of a protected tree is always a consideration, the arborists’ report states that the tree is likely to fail in the future and in doing so may damage another tree in the process.

Variance Discussion

The Zoning Bylaw describes a secondary suite as such:

“Secondary Suite” means a secondary and subordinate dwelling unit that is entirely contained within, and is subordinate to, a detached residential building in accordance with Section 4.1 of this bylaw.

When one is to consider that the secondary suite is being built as an addition and is requiring a floor area variance as a result, it is difficult to describe the proposed suite as being ‘entirely contained within, and…subordinate to’ the existing home. Nevertheless if there were no floor area variance required, a Building Permit and a Secondary Suite Permit would allow the suite.

The rationale for refusal

That there is a variance required to build a suite which is not subordinate to the house suggests that the variance does not meet the spirit of the Zoning Bylaw with respect to what constitutes a large lot, detached residential use. The house has a suite, currently, but the integration of that suite within the house is not sufficient or practical for the current need. The proposal of the rear-yard suite will produce something more useful for the housing of parents; in doing so, however, the proposal is closer to resembling a garden suite or a duplex (neither of which is permitted by the zoning). There is also the issue of the 10m covenant area at the rear of the property, which must be left in a natural state. This effectively reduces the area of the useable property by approximately 20%.

Staff is of the opinion that the proposal runs counter to the direction around Secondary Suites which the municipality took when the Zoning Bylaw was approved in 2014, especially regarding a general unwillingness to permit garden suites. Ultimately, there is a question as to whether this is an appropriate use for a detached residential zoning and whether a two bedroom home for parents now could be a use more intensive and disruptive to neighbours in the future.

The rationale for approval

The rationale for approving the variance for floor area is that it leaves the property under the permitted Floor Space Ratio within the zone. It is a large property which backs onto agricultural land within the District of Saanich. The proposal provides the residents with a clear improvement to their property regarding the social and financial condition of the extended family. It will permit their parents to live on the property, which is a prime consideration for the family. It has received support from adjacent neighbours on Meadow Park Lane.

Affordable housing and Secondary Suites

The Official Community Plan has a clear policy direction of improving housing affordability. The region’s vacancy rate is currently below 1% and the price of a benchmark detached house in View Royal has increased by almost 24% year-over-year (October 2015 to October 2016) according to the Victoria Real Estate Board. There is a real housing crisis in the region.

The City of Victoria is currently reviewing their garden suite and secondary suite policies and is considering permitting garden suites in all detached residential zones without a rezoning, considering allowing secondary suites in houses with garden suites, and considering permitting secondary suites in duplex residential zones.

As a response to the erosion of affordability in View Royal, Council may also wish to consider revisiting its secondary suite regulations in response to a tightening market which could permit secondary suites such as this proposal without the requirement for a variance.

ALTERNATE RECOMMENDATION

THAT Council approve Development Variance Permit 2016/10 as per the report from the Planner dated November 28, 2016;

AND THAT Development Variance Permit 2016/10 include a variance to the maximum permitted floor area in the R-1: Detached Residential (Large Lot) zone from 372m² to 420m².

AND THAT the current suite within the house be decommissioned to the satisfaction of the Building Inspector.

RECOMMENDATION

THAT Council not approve Development Variance Permit 2016/10.

SUBMITTED BY: J. Davison MCIP RPP, Planner

REVIEWED BY: L. Chase MCIP RPP, Director of Development Services

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Subject Property Map
2. Subject Property Orthophoto
3. Applicant’s Statement – Applicant – September 28, 2015
4. Site Survey (Island Land Surveying) – January 6, 2016
5. Building Plans and Elevations – Burrows Holdings Ltd – March 1, 2016
6. Photo of Garry Oak Tree – Staff
7. Arborists’ Report – Davey Tree Service – November 9, 2016
8. Letter of support from neighbours