Applicant's Statement - Marianna Mazza

February 12, 2014

Dear Mayor and Council,

My name is Marianna Mazza and I am the owner of 281 Pallisier Avenue (Formally 291 Beaumont Ave). On August 30 2013 a stop work order was placed by View Royal.

This was because of the following reasons:

• The location of the parking access.
• I was informed by View Royal that the bylaw required that the parking access be at least 1.5m away from the property line. At no time were we advised by View Royal that we would require a setback of 1.5meters for a parking access. Our understanding is that a 1.5 meter setback is only required when it is between a building or an attached structure i.e. shed or carport. Clearly this is just going to be used for parking purposes only. In the Municipal zoning bi-law it states exactly what a setback, structure and landscaping means.

Definitions

"Setback" means the required minimum distance, open and unobstructed to the sky, between a building or structure and a lot line.

"Structure" means anything constructed or erected on a lot, the use of which requires location on the ground or attachment to something having location on the ground, but does not include landscaping, walkways, driveways, or parking lots.

"Landscaping" means the planting of lawns, shrubs and trees, including the addition of fencing, walks, and driveways on a lot or highway.

• Based on these terms and meanings, we do not believe that a 'setback' is required for the parking access because there is no structure erected on the parking area. The parking access is also part of our landscape design.

• I was asked to provide information that described the exact location of the parking access including dimensions relative to the location of the lot lines. I contacted Peter Broeren from Island Land Surveying Ltd who came on site, conducted the survey based on the information that was required by View Royal. This survey was very expensive and it has set me back yet another $750.00.

My parking access was placed in the original access point for 281 Pallisier Avenue. We were told that a secondary parking access point was allowed on this property because of it being a corner lot. The parking area originally had quite a downward slope and was dangerous because of possible sliding of vehicles, and problems with visibility when exiting the lot. The solution therefore was to level the parking access to the municipal roadway. The parking area was built as small as possible as to not be intrusive to the new and neighbours existing landscape. The fence in question directly on the Parking access area is strictly for safety reason and was put back in the exact location, as when I purchased the property.

NOTE: The retaining wall is approximately 4" inside my property, and not directly on the property line itself.

Bryan Sweeney from Shady Tree Landscaping met with Deb Becelaere from the Engineering Department at View Royal to provide sketch plans and to have a discussion around what the plan was for the boulevards. These sketches were drawn by Bryan Sweeney from Shady Tree Landscaping, submitted to Deb on the day of the meeting.

A discussion occurred around items surrounding the type of materials that were to be installed at the municipal parking access point. Deb Becelaere and Bryan Sweeny agreed that Sod Crete was the appropriate material and would be approved by View Royal.

My neighbours Dyne and Elaine Torgeson were informed prior to the construction that there was going to be a retaining wall and fence placed dividing our properties. They agreed to the height of the retaining wall, and fence because they wanted to have privacy, and to keep their large dog in the yard. Dyne and Elaine Torgeson have also financially contributed a substantial amount of money to have this fence installed.

When the stop work order was placed in August 2013, I was informed that that we should have submitted a landscape plan at the time the building permit was issued. This was never brought to our attention or discussed as to what my landscape plan was nor was I under the impression that a landscape/fence/retaining wall plan was necessary or required.

• We were informed by View Royal that the parking structure included a concrete support which may be encroaching on the Town Boulevard. We were asked to contact a surveyor for information to include detailed information describing the location of the entire parking structure and supporting walls relative to the front (street) and side yard lines including all dimensions. . I contacted Peter Broeren from Island Land Surveying Ltd who came on site, conducted the survey based on the information that was required by View Royal.

Retaining Walls

The retaining walls surrounding the parking access were placed at their current location to:

• Square the walls to allow for equal pressure on both sides.
• To prevent aggregate from sloughing away into surrounding landscapes. It is common practice to build this type of retaining wall into the top of a slope.
• The top of the retaining walls surrounding the parking access when finished would be equal to the municipal road way. No curb would protrude or be visible to anyone on municipal property. The alternative to the buried retaining walls would have been a boulder stack which would have been more intrusive and visible to everyone on the municipal property.
• A surveyor was hired and plans have been submitted for your review.

Fence Height and Zoning Compliance

• We were also informed that the View Royal zoning bi-law stated that the fence height could not exceed a maximum of two meters or (6'6").
• The fence height does not exceed two meters or (6'6"). There are two different fence panels used on this property. There is five 6 x 8 Aquila summit fence panes in the lower yard that sit at a height of (1.94m or 6'4") off the retaining wall (at finished grade). There are (3)- 5'3" X 6' solid fence panels in the lower yard that sit at a height of (1.82m or 5'11") off the retaining wall (at finished grade). There are (5) Aquila fence panels surrounding the parking area that sit at a height of (1.84m or 6') off the retaining walls (at finished grade).
• These measurements were taken from finished grade. It states in View Royals municipal zoning bi-laws dated June 2013 (Page 7, Section 3) 'finished grade' means the final elevation of the ground surface after development.
• A detailed surveyor sketch and fence heights have been submitted for your review.

In closing, I would like to say that I have been trying to work closely with the View Royal planning team in hopes that we can get this variance request resolved without further delay. The financial hardship this has caused me with the Development application fee required, land survey, and extra time paid to trades to assist me, it has cost me yet another $1750.00 over and above the extra costs incurred when building the home. I would like this to stop as this has been a real hardship and stressful situation for me.

Thank you for your time regarding this matter.

Marianna Mazza