Letter dated April 7, 2018 from D. Richardson & N. Hemsworth, 121 View Royal Avenue
Lengthy correspondence from neighbors detailing extensive objections to the development and variance at 117 View Royal Ave.
April 7, 2018
Dear Mayor, Councillors, Committee of the Whole, Chief Administrative Officer, Director of Development Services, Senior Planner:
Re: Committee of the Whole Meeting, Tuesday April 10, 2018
Agenda Item 9.2.3 Staff Reports
b) Development Variance Permit No. 2018/01 - 117 View Royal Ave.
We do not feel it is appropriate to relax the fence or the retaining wall height on the 117 project at all, for these reasons:
- We feel that a large sport court should never have been placed in a side yard on an R1 lot, where as the only direct neighbour to quote their designer, "within 30m", we are directly affected visually, and by extreme ball noise.
(N.B. The plans given to View Royal Planning completely omitted information on their plan to build a large "patio" in the side yard, (actually the future "sport court"), and the plan omitted info on the 12' high retaining walls they want(ed) to build.
- we feel that View Royal Bylaws need to be reviewed:
a) to consider what are appropriate noise levels that neighbours are expected to endure, from kids playing/machines/anything noisy in a side yard.
b) to limit what structures can be built in a side yard, where neighbours are close to each other, and have a more direct impact on each other. (eg. heat pumps and chickens are not allowed in a side yard....yet a sport court is?)
(N.B. We would like to prevent this stressful situation from happening to other citizens, as the Town becomes more "developed".)
We recently provided an information package to Mayor, Councillors, and other View Royal Officers, voicing our concerns about a potential DVP application for 117 View Royal. Now that application is in progress, we are writing again with follow up information and clarification of erroneous points and manipulation of numbers by Aaron Mills, in his letter to the Development Services Department, (included in the Planning and Development Report for this variance request).
Errors in the Application letter submitted by Aaron Mills: Aaron's current letter for the variance application includes a lot of misinformation/untruths, ongoing, with project at 117 View Royal. We will list those here:
The letter to Planning is addressed as Re: 117 View Royal Avenue "Retaining Walls".
This variance is listed as a variance for fence height, so why is the variance asking (like last year?) for 12' high retaining walls?
The View Royal "Purpose of Report" only says the permit application is "to vary the maximum permitted fence height from 2.0 m to 3.7 m, to enclose a sport court....".
N.B. The requested over-height fencing does not require any over-height retaining walls--just over-height fencing. (Although Aaron has already built a 6' to 8' over-height, non-reinforced retaining wall to the south, between 117 and their physically lower neighbour, the McCooey's--a wall they have backfilled with dirt on the McCooey's and the Larsen's properties, to make it look like they have built a 4' (1.2 m) bylaw compliant wall.)
Still in the first paragraph, Aaron is requesting to "relax requirements for fence & retaining wall heights", when the planning report talks only of fence height. For the purposes of building the "sport court", the owners previously told View Royal they were building "patio". (As Gary said to Noreen in answer to our earlier concerns, Gary said "there is no fence" which implied "there is no court".)
Now that they have an "existing" patio, they are calling it an existing sport court, and they want to fence it with a fence that contravenes bylaws--bylaws that are there to protect neighbours like us.
If this same fence were to be built in a park, or a school yard, it would have to be 6 m away from any neighbour's property lines. (Zoning Bylaw 3.7.3.) This structure is less than a meter from us, yet they feel entitled to "relax" bylaws, create a large ongoing noise disturbance, a visual block/eyesore, and an overall property devaluation for us, so that they can have a sport court that they do not have to even look at or through--we do, as it is in direct line of our much smaller view corridor. This court could have been built anywhere on their large, 16000 square foot lot, and we told the neighbours numerous times that we supported over-height fencing there --but it seems they do not want to have it where they have to see it, in their view.
Also of note in Aaron's first paragraph, "The relaxation is to allow the placement of a fence around the Sport Court in their back yard".
THIS IS THE SIDE YARD, RIGHT UNDER OUR SLEEPING, LIVING, KITCHEN AND 2 DECKS. The noise travels directly up! We hear every ball bounce, and every hoot, inside our house, with the windows and doors all shut tight.
For the sake of other View Royal residents as the Town undergoes more development, we hope that Council will address the appropriate use of a side yard, so that other people will not have to go through what we have gone through. Heat pumps and chickens are not allowed in side yards, but "sport courts" with any amount of over-height fencing, are allowed? The Bylaws for fencing and retaining wall heights are as they are, to prevent abuse of neighbours, by developers, like Aaron, who manipulate both the neighbours and the Bylaws to get what the owner wants.
Aaron's paragraph 2 is a complete lie. "This property features an existing home that was just renovated." This is a total deception. There is not one stick of wood left from the beautiful older house that was there. There is only a minimal part of the foundation--even most of the foundation was removed, and rebuilt for a larger footprint/house. THIS WAS NOT A RENOVATION. IT WAS A TEAR DOWN, AND AN ENTIRELY NEW HOUSE WAS BUILT. (We do have photos.)
More untruths in Paragraph 2 of Aaron's letter follow, like, "The property slopes down from the front"...This property no longer slopes down. It is completely level at both the front of the house, and the back having been levelled by them with an excavator and rock breaker. They have retaining walls on the west side by the sport court (this is where the aborted Board of Variance request for the "great wall" that they wanted to be built, a year ago, that it sounds like they still are trying to build).
In paragraph 3, Aaron says they have put in a "landscape buffer" from our property line to their "patio" (court). These people approached us over a year ago, asking to remove the forest of mature evergreens between our houses-- a great buffer that in hind sight could have stayed to prevent all this. We agreed to have the trees down, as it would let in more light to the veggies, and widen our outlook. A sport court was intentionally never mentioned. And as we were told by the Bylaw Officer who came to review our noise complaint, "you were duped". The neighbours at 117 never even hinted they wanted to build a noisy, visually disturbing ball banging-sport court in front of us (so they wouldn't have to look at it themselves and disturb their very large sea views in any way). And now, after it is built, they are requesting an over-height fence that will devalue our property. In the past few weeks they have planted a Bamboo hedge - the tall variety and fastest growing plant on the planet, right in front of the narrow sea view corridor and it will soon block out any added light to the garden, and most of our narrow sea view, but will not block out our view down inside the sport court and its perimeter walls. (See the photo as taken from the McCooey's yard.) Instead of working with us for a solution that works--like putting the court elsewhere, they seem to prefer to "get even" by blocking our view and light and planting a huge hedge--the whole reason we agreed to have the trees down in the first place was to open up the space to light and view.
In paragraph 4 Aaron talks about being "off-sides with requirements set forth" in the Zoning Bylaw. A variance to 4.8.1. would allow an unsightly, over-height fence, that will increase the already unbearable noise level of games and balls in the side yard (not the backyard as he calls it).
A variance to the second bylaw mentioned by Aaron, Bylaw #4.8.11, is not even appropriate. This Bylaw states that "a retaining wall may measure up to 2 m measured from grade, where the existing grade of the subject lot is lower than the abutting lot. In this case, the combined height of a fence on a top of a retaining wall at the lot line must not exceed 2 m, measured from the grade of the abutting higher lot." Normally a retaining wall can be only 1.2 m. This is the case for the project at 117--the maximum retaining wall height is 1.2 m, not 2 m.: because their lot is the higher than the McCooey's, and it is the same natural grade as ours. (So the McCooeys being the lower lot could have a retaining wall up to 2 m., but not 117.) This bylaw is not application to 117, so we do not understand why he has included it. Our properties are side by side, and they have the same existing slope/grade, down towards the sea to the south, the same slope that we do.
Aaron says in paragraph 4 that the fence will "not exceed 10 feet above the Sport Court surface"...again more manipulation of the situation: as the court itself is built up on retaining walls already, the elevation of the entire project is much more of an eyesore than the 10' of chain link stated by Aaron. This is an attempt to down-play the overall height. No matter how he attempts to describe it, they proposed 10' min. to 12' structure; bylaw height is 6.56' (2 m combination of fence and retaining wall).
There is more misleading information in paragraph 5, with Aaron stating that they are "respectfully requesting this variance...due to the geography of the property". First off, it is not respectful at all, because the request is full of untruths and manipulations. The major lie in this particular paragraph is this: "Due to the steep slopes of the lot providing no flat, usable play area the only feasible location for the Sport Court was it's current location for the owner's family to enjoy."
The yard is 16,000 SQ. FEET. It is huge. As soon as we found out from a carpenter that there was going to be a sport court, we asked the owners if it could be please put it to the South (in their actual backyard), to the Northeast, or to the Northwest--and that we would support it and over-height fencing/walls, in any other location, just not under our noses on the west in the side yard.
All input from us was ignored, because the neighbours at 117 do not wish to look at the sport court and block their own views from even the lower level. (Note they have 3 levels of views to the south, and we have a narrow corridor view, over their court.)
As neighbours, we are happy to collect "errant balls", and it is good exercise for kids to chase after any ball that a 2 m fence cannot contain. For us at 121, having to eternally gaze through a 12 foot plus ball structure, day in and day out, for the sake of their kids having to chase after a few balls that are not collected by a normal 6' high height fence, seems like an unreasonable request--let alone the increase in the noise level from a greater variety of ball types, like tennis balls, from a higher fenced area.
We also feel there is more subtle manipulation in Aaron requesting an increased fence height, yet asking to vary the retaining wall height from 2 m to 3.66 m. Are they still seeking to build their "great wall" that they applied to with the Board of Variance last year? Why do they need an over-height retaining wall, when their walls are already built?
Aaron's photos on his "page 2" are no longer current, and do not show the voracious bamboo hedge that has been planted. The photo from the Town on the Planning Report is accurate. You can see the hedge (just planted and in its infancy), and you can see in the town's photo how our major view windows look directly at the court. To the right of this photo is a huge flat area in the 117 Backyard, where the neighbours could have put their court, out of direct earshot and out of our direct sight lines, and all this hassle for the Town and Council could have been averted. We have a black chain link fence at/near the south-west corner and it is 4' where the neighbours had to look through it--the previous neighbour loved our fence, built on our wall to keep out the deer. What the current 117 is requesting is inconsiderate, and down-right selfish and un-neighbourly.
In (Dave's) 40+ years as a Construction Project Manager on projects both large and small, (currently the new Amica building on Gorge and Admirals), the experience has always been that as contractors and architects, they have always met with neighbours and city officials well in advance of starting a project, so everyone knows exactly what is proposed, and so that any concerns can be addressed and dealt with, up front, with no "surprises" down the road.
This has not been the case with 117. We had to apply to View Royal to review plans, where we saw all sorts of interesting things like "existing driveways" that were not existing, and "existing residence to remain with additions", which was really a teardown, and nothing on the plan about an over-height massive retaining wall, or a "patio" for a sport court, and certainly no mention of a sport court!
The trees to be removed, likely without a permit, were not noted on the plan.
The previous (eventually withdrawn) Board of Variance Application requested variance to the height of fence in side yard from bylaw height of 2 m to 4 m. And variance of retaining wall height from 1.2 m to 3 m. Any relaxation over the 2 m would directly affect us, as "the only neighbour within 30m", again to quote Aaron. After the last fiasco with the Board of Variance over the 13' foot concrete retaining wall they wanted to build for this court, the 117 neighbours wrote to us twice, as well as verbally telling us that "they would work within the bylaws to finish their court and landscaping"--but they too have lied about that, as well as about their reason for removing the evergreen forest.
We hope that all of you working on behalf of View Royal will see that over-height fencing and a sport court in a side yard are a precedent that no-one wants to be set. We request that the R1 Bylaws for fencing and retaining walls be respected, especially since there has been deception and manipulation of neighbours and of the Town, to get this project around the Town Bylaws. There has been no collaboration or respect with us as direct neighbours, and any requests we have made well in advance, to place the sport court elsewhere, have been ignored. We found out about the court from a carpenter onsite--not from our neighbours, or the builder. We obliged our new neighbours by agreeing to tree removal, and we have been rewarded with a noisy sport court, and a voracious hedge smack in our view and ongoing sneaky behaviour.
We request that some noise use limitations be placed upon this court, so we can enjoy our yard and home and have some noise control, at least inside our home. We ask that no precedent be set by allowing a sport court with over-height walls/fencing in a side yard.
Our most important request is that View Royal Council review appropriate use of a side yard, and revisit those bylaws, so that other residents do not have to go through an ongoing situation like this, that unnecessarily disturbs the place they spend a lifetime working for, have most of their resources tied up in, and ultimately call home.
Thanks for your consideration of our request to decline this variance for any height alteration in fence or retaining wall heights. Keeping to a maximum of 2 m high fencing and 1.2 m high retaining walls will help to reduce the direct impact of this sport court of those of living at 121.
Sincerely,
Dave and Noreen
(Dave Richardson, AScT, CEC, GSC & Noreen Hemsworth, RN)
121 View Royal Avenue
David Richardson Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 6:00 PM To: Mayor mayorandcouncil@viewroyal.ca, Gary f gfaykes@viewroyal.ca, James JDavison@viewroyal.ca, "Ecalla@viewroyal.ca" ecalla@viewroyal.ca, Mark Groulx MGroulx@viewroyal.ca, info@viewroyal.ca, firerescue@viewroyal.ca Cc: Noreen Hemsworth
Dear Town of View Royal Officers,
We would like to invite any of you that would be interested in stopping by our house at 121 View Royal Ave. to view the proposed chain link / or netting over-height structure that is being planned by our neighbours at 117 View Royal Ave. (Temporary lines of string are currently up by the builder, and have been highlighted in the attached photos. The top line is the proposed netting/chainlink fence height about 13-14' compared to the permitted 6'; the bottom line shows the allowed line for an interior fence structure under our Bylaws). To clarify, the definition of a fence under our Land Use Bylaw, "a fence means any railing, paling, trellis, tower, retaining wall, or other screening, or combination thereof. not being a building or vegetation forming a boundary, or enclosing some area."
Attached are some photos of the neighbouring yard from our side, and also some from the McCooey's yard (in front of ours and in front of the new neighbour)--the McCooeys are at 111 View Royal. Pat Mccooey has given permission for anyone interested to walk down his driveway and into his yard to get a better elevation view of how inappropriate any netting or over-height ball containment structure would be here, if allowed to be built to anything other than the height of our Bylaws--Bylaws that were created to protect citizens' rights as property owners.
After the last fiasco where our neighbour's and their designer blatantly lied to the Variance Board when applying for a Variance to build a 13'-4" ball-banging wall--saying it was a hardship for them because of a sloping yard and nowhere for children to play (the yard was already huge at 16,000 square feet--and flat, having been recently levelled by machines). After that fiasco our neighbours apologized and reassured us they would "work within the bylaws" to complete their sport court and landscaping. Here is the email from last year, to us and the McCooeys, from Cheyenne:
From: cheyenne perrin Date: March 1, 2017 at 10:54:47 AM PST To: Noreen Hemsworth, Dawn McCooey Subject: Variance Reply-To: cheyenne perrin
Hello Neighbours, Kyle and I would like to apologize for any stress the variance proposal has caused you all. We were surprised that we caused so many hard feelings as that was never our intention. We have decided to withdraw the variance application at this point and work within the bylaws as we go forward with our landscape design. Please feel free to contact Tony Houston with your concerns if you have any as we move forward.
Sincerely, Cheyenne and Kyle
And another email from Cheyenne to us:
From: Cheyenne Perrin Date: March 1, 2017 at 3:06:42 PM PST To: Noreen Hemsworth Subject: Re: Tomorrow
Hi Noreen, No thank you. We will be moving forward and planning within the Bylaws. If you have future concerns it would be better for me if you contact Tony rather than me as this project is already somewhat stressful and I want to keep a friendly relationship with you as a future neighbor. Kind regards, Cheyenne Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 1, 2017, at 2:57 PM, Noreen Hemsworth wrote: Hi Cheyenne, would you and Kyle like to meet with Dave and I and discuss issues around your project? Sent from my Black Berry 10 smartphone on the TELUS network.
Original Message From: Cheyenne Perrin Sent: Wednesday, March 1, 2017 1:13 PM To: Noreen Hemsworth Subject: Tomorrow
Hi Noreen, There will be no need to meet tomorrow as we have decided not to go forward with a variance at this time. Have a great day! Cheyenne
Cheyenne also deceived both us and the McCooeys, saying that that Variance had been withdrawn, when it had not been withdrawn, even 3 days later when we asked Gary and James about it. (It was then withdrawn when the designer was called on it.) I have included that email to us from our neighbour, above as it is part of the same email, which says clearly that they would "work within the Bylaws". This is turning again into yet another deception, and going against their word, as they are currently trying to put pressure on us and on the Town to allow over-height fencing or netting that is more than double the permitted height, and which if constructed would make us feel like we are in jail each time we look out the windows or walk in our yard. We were also reassured a number of times by View Royal officers that nothing will be built that is not to Bylaws.
Our lawyer has advised that we write to you to have this matter cleared up as soon as possible, and to have these red strings removed asap, and have the threat of over-height fencing netting removed, and that their fence be built to Bylaws, with a maximum height of 2M from finished grade.
From the outset we have let our neighbours know that we support children playing and a sport court, but we do not support an over-height concentrated ball area right under our living/sleeping /garden areas, in a side yard our Bylaws state even a 4-chicken coup is deemed too noisy, and when the neighbours have at least 3 other large sites they could have put their court, where it affects zero neighbours. At this point we are asking that Bylaws be respected.
Sincerely,
Noreen Hemsworth & Dave Richardson 121 View Royal Avenue
Our concerns over the TENNIS/BASKETBALL multi-sport court at 117 View Royal are:
1). Bylaws have been ignored or manipulated by the designer/builder/owners throughout the project. *See examples of this under #1 at bottom of second page, please.
2). If a development variance is allowed, to create an over-height fence, we will have a constant view through chain link or netting. The fence height Bylaw is there to protect neighbours like us, from just this scenario. On the permit application under Rationale for your Proposal it asks this, "what effects does this proposal have on immediate neighbours...consider...noise, activity levels...removal of trees (already done without a permit), privacy, views, etc.
3). This is not an appropriate use of a side yard as it is noise intensive: even four chickens, or bees, or a heat pump are not allowed in a side yard. We feel that the Bylaws could use some amending in the appropriate use of a side yard: paved courts need to be in the front or backyard setbacks, not under the neighbour's kitchen and bedrooms and decks, where pounding balls are heard with the doors and windows shut. There are already unreasonable levels of noise coming from this concentrated concrete play area they call a "patio": adults are yelling and repetitively banging balls, not just the children. An over-height fence means more noise, and less exercise for kids who miss out on the experience of chasing after a ball. (The kids rarely miss the hoop anyway.)
4). A development permit application is inappropriate, as the municipality has already been lied to by the designer, over a previous variance request for a 13'4" concrete retaining wall to our property in Feb. 2017, where the Board of Variance hardship was listed as "no level play area for the children in the yard", when the designer had already had the entire backyard flattened and 4 mature evergreens removed (likely without a permit, and with no replanting as per Bylaws for illegal removal of trees --we have those tree rounds chopped up here for firewood, in our side yard). This designer, Aaron Mills came to our home in Feb. 2017, and when asked about "the hardship" he had listed, he told me that he had not been on the property since the previous Aug. (This was in Feb. 2017), and therefore he "did not know it was flat", which was a complete lie. He orchestrated the entire development and the Variance was in his name.
5). The levelled and filled back yard at 117 is already over 2 feet over-height, as the Bylaws were not adhered to when retaining walls were built. (View Royal inspector told us that the retaining walls that were built in some spots to over 6 feet, instead of the Bylaw permitted 4 feet, "were good enough for (him)"). Those walls, which are unreinforced, also should have 8 feet of horizontal separation, before stepping up another 4 feet height of retaining walls to the next level, but the walls only step back horizontally by 4 feet, therefore, the whole backyard is higher than it was allowed to be. The developer was told to bank dirt up on the 2 neighbours' properties below us (which they did), so that the walls would look like they are 4' from grade, instead of 6'. All of this affects our views, and the height of the chain link we have to look through.
6). We are concerned that the municipal officers ignore some of our emails. We do greatly appreciate the ones they do answer and follow through on. IF the new neighbours had followed the Bylaws, and had been honest to us, we would never have complained, at all. The ongoing deception has resulted in a lack of trust in them, and created stress for all. We have been assured via phone and via emails from View Royal Officers and from our neighbours, that "nothing will be built that is not to Bylaw" and that "they will work within the Bylaws." This does not seem to be the case.
Thank you for your attention to these very important to us, issues.
Sincerely,
Dave and Noreen
#1.
i.) The first lie was calling this a Reno. It was a demolition job--we have photos.
ii.) They added a new driveway entrance in Nov. of 2016, and then on the plan to View Royal they called it an "existing" driveway (so they could have a non-conforming u-shape driveway with two highway crossings).
iii.) They called an over height wall they started to build (13'+ horizontal from their new house to our property line) a part of the structure, when it was actually a way over height retaining wall for the court, for banging balls against in the side yard.
iv.) They deceived us as to plans for the side yard when they asked for our permission to remove 4 mature evergreens, which they promptly did, so there is no way they had a permit, and these trees were outside the building envelope. We have photos, and rounds from the trees.
v.) Retaining walls for the backyard they attempted to build to 10' instead of 4'; and the inspector let them get away with 6'.
vi.) They did not frame up the attached walk way, as per code, from the garage to the house, until we called Gary on it.
vii.) It appeared they were wiring for a heat pump in the side yard, which Gary dealt with.
viii.) They currently have two non-conforming drive in parking spots on the street, where there ought to be parallel street public parking in the front of their house, (where they made a hokey attempt at closing off the original driveway that looks like it can be reopened as a drive through u shaped driveway down the road).
117 View Royal Ave.
"Dave's notes":
- 117 was sold to new owners
- new owners rented house to two young women for a while
- while rented, owners threw down some gravel on boulevard (municipal road allowance), with the appearance of creating additional parking
- Dave & Noreen went to Town Hall to view plans of proposed project
- site plan said:
existingdriveway to be resurfaced; two driveway entrances; second one wasNOT existingexisting resid. to remainwith proposed addition; house was completely demolished, with the exception of portion of foundation only which remained- attached garage; however with open breezeway to house
- NO "sport court" indicated or mentioned
- house was demolished (only portion of basement foundation remained)
- to be neighbourly, Dave went over to meet builder (Tony)
- Tony asked if we minded if trees in back yard were removed; we said that would be okay as it would then let much more light into our garden (no mention by Tony whatsoever of a "sport court" or "patio" in that area)
- Trees were removed (with or without a permit?)
- Dave made contact with Doug the excavator operator (nice fellow), to discuss flying rock from the rock hammering process (one window at 121 broken, then repaired). In general discussion, Doug intimated that a "sport court" was planned for that area (where the trees were removed!!!)
- As Mark (Bylaw Officer) said: "you were duped" (by builder).
- foundation work started, and we noticed 10 foot high (approx.) rebar sticking up outside our kitchen window, for a retaining wall
- we called Gary to say that retaining walls 1.2 meters high are allowed
- work was stopped on the retaining wall
- "designer" then initiated an "application to the board of variance", to increase fence height from 2m to 4m, and retaining wall from 1.2 m to 3m
- How was this application even considered by Town of View Royal?
- just prior to this application, designer came to us (Noreen) with letters containing outright false, incorrect, and misleading statements; and describing a "patio" (that is NOT a sport court)
- the board of variance application was subsequently withdrawn (see our March 5th email to Town, giving more background on that)
- owners then said: "we have decided to... work within the bylaws as we go forward with our landscape design" and "We will be moving forward and planning within the Bylaws".
- stepped 1.2 m high reinforced concrete retaining walls were built as per bylaws, and then the "patio" (with perimeter footings and perimeter foundation wall, and concrete slab) was constructed
- and now here we are in March 2018, being intimidated again (this time, by the builder) by this move to ignore our Town Bylaws and build a fence that is twice bylaw height; after the owner told us they would "work within the bylaws"
- and other topics:
- stone retaining walls: were being built at the south side of 117; they were obviously over the bylaw allowable height of 1.2 meters. We called Gary about this; he said that everything was being done within bylaws. We iterated that, no, the walls would be over-height. He said that the walls were fully within the property and that once backfilled they would be bylaw height. The walls are actually right on the property line, so, no, they could not be backfilled to make them 1.2 meters high. He said "it is none of your business" and "call my supervisor". (By this time, and which we can fully appreciate, Gary was quite stressed by this project.) I did call Paul Hurst (and left voicemail) a couple of times, but he did not call back. I spoke with James; he said that if the walls were found to have been built incorrectly, council would initiate a court order to have the work removed and rebuilt properly. I suggested that it would much simpler for all concerned if town officers just did a quick site visit to make sure that in fact the walls were being built as per bylaws.
- work on the stone retaining walls stopped
- stone walls at the south-west portion were then reconfigured to be stepped back; somewhat closer to bylaws, but still not as per bylaws. Unreinforced walls are to be stepped back 8'; the second stone wall was only stepped back 4'. And backfill was placed on neighbouring properties, to make a still-over-height portion of wall appear to be within bylaw height
- connection of garage to house: garages are to be "attached", however, the plan showed an open "breezeway". When framing of the overall was almost, we noticed that the garage had not yet been "attached"; we called Gary to make sure that in fact it would be attached; he confirmed that yes it had to be attached; then "coincidentally" the next day framing between garage and house was done (it certainly appeared that owner/builder was attempting to keep the open "breezeway" concept.)
- heat pump in side yard: we heard that the heat pump location was to be in the side yard beside our kitchen; Noreen spoke with Gary; he went to site and nipped that in the bud; thank you.
- recently, we noticed that the second "existing" driveway entrance was paved, and the real existing driveway entrance was also active; we sent our second inquiry to the Town about this; shortly after that, the true existing driveway entrance was blocked off by a berm and boulders. Will the driveway pavement be removed, and the boulevard returned to somewhat of a "garry oak meadow" state; to make up for that which was destroyed at the other (now active) driveway location?
- We suggested to the Town that the owner be required to provide suitable replacement trees for those removed at "sport court" area.
Had the owner/designer/builder just respected our bylaws, and their neighbouring properties, these "notes" would not have been necessary:)
definitions of "patio":
- an area of flat blocks or concrete next to a house, where people can sit and relax or eat
- a recreation area that adjoins a dwelling, is often paved, and is adapted especially to outdoor dining
- an area, usually paved, adjoining a house and used as an area for outdoor lounging, dining, etc.
TOWN OF VIEW ROYAL
NOTICE OF PROCESSING AN APPLICATION TO THE BOARD OF VARIANCE
RE: APPLICATION TO THE BOARD OF VARIANCE - 117 View Royal Ave
The Local Government Act provides for the establishment of a Board of Variance to consider applications by anyone alleging that enforcement of zoning requirements respecting siting, shape, or size of a building or structure would cause him or her undue hardship. The Board of Variance may authorize a minor variance from the applicable provisions of the Land Use Bylaw, provided that such a variance is considered desirable for the appropriate development of the site, does not adversely affect the natural environment, does not substantially affect the use and enjoyment of adjacent land, maintains the general intent of the Bylaw, and does not vary permitted uses or density of land.
The applicant, Aaron Mills, has made application to the Board of Variance to request a variance for the property having a civic address of 117 View Royal Ave and more particularly described as:
LOT A, SECTION 3, ESQUIMALT DISTRICT, PLAN 48590
as shown boldly outlined on the map on the reverse side of this Notice.
The applicant is requesting relaxation of the following regulation contained in Section 4.8 Fences and Retaining Walls within Zoning Bylaw No. 900, 2014:
- Variance to the height of a fence in the side yard from 2m to 4m (Section 4.8.1 of Zoning Bylaw No. 900, 2014)
- Variance to the height of a retaining wall on a residential lot from 1.2m to 3m (Section 4.8.9 of Zoning Bylaw No. 900, 2014)
The Board will be meeting at 7:00 pm on Wednesday, March 8, 2017 at the View Royal Town Hall (located at 45 View Royal Avenue, Victoria, BC, V9B 1A6) to consider the subject application. If you have any representations to make, the Board would be pleased to consider them at that time. If you are unable to attend the meeting, written comments may be mailed, facsimiled, emailed, or hand delivered to the Town of View Royal. Written comments must be received by 3:30 pm on Wednesday, March 8, 2017. A copy of the application and related information may be inspected at the View Royal Town Hall, Monday to Friday between the hours of 8:30 am and 4:30 pm from Friday, February 24, 2017 until Wednesday, March 8, 2017.
Mail: 45 View Royal Avenue, Victoria, BC, V9B 1A6 Facsimile: 250-727-9551 E-mail: planning@viewroyal.ca
Dated the 21st day of February, 2017
James Davison, MCIP RPP Planner
February 27th 2017
RE: 117 View Royal Avenue Board of Variance Application
Dear Neighbours of 117 View Royal Avenue,
My name is Aaron Mills and I wanted to leave some information for you regarding a project that the Town of View Royal has hopefully already contacted you about. I wanted to take a moment to explain what is being applied for at 117 View Royal Avenue, as well as give you my contact information if you wish to contact me directly anytime for more information, or if you have any comments or concerns you would like addressed.
Your soon to be new Neighbours, Cheyenne Perrin & Kyle Egger, have made an application to Town of View Royal's Board of Variance for relaxations to a requirement regarding fences and retaining walls. The relaxation is to allow the construction of a retaining wall to create a flat concrete patio open area on the east side of the home. This patio area will have a surrounding fence on the 3 open sides to create a sport court in the side yard on the West side, near the back of the home.
The property has steep slope at the rear of the lot, and to create a flat playing surface an area had to be levelled on the property with a proposed retaining wall in place to hold the soil on the high side. This retaining wall is to be 3.00m - 9.84' tall and will have a 42" - 1.06m guard-rail on top. This makes the total measureable height of both items 4.06m - 13.34'.
There is also a fence proposed to surround the remaining 3 sides of the patio, to create a contained sport court. This surround has been designed to be sensitive to the neighbouring property immediately to the West side. The height of sides of the patio fence surround will follow the height of the adjacent existing fence to remain, which is located on the side property line to the West. This ensures that the Neighbour's complete southern clear view sightlines are not interrupted by this higher area of the patio fence surround. The finish of the patio fence surround will match the existing property line fence to remain.
For these reasons we have requested a relaxation to Town of View Royal's height requirements for retaining walls with guard rails on top. Please see the attached letter to the Town of View Royal for more specific details of what is being requested. If you have any further questions or concerns feel free to contact me anytime at dezignzone@shaw.ca or at 250-388-3729.
Thank you for your time,
Aaron Mills Dezign Zone Developments Ltd. A-485 Garbally Road, Victoria, BC V8V3B3 250-388-DRAW
February 3rd 2017
Development Services Department Town of View Royal 45 View Royal Avenue Victoria, BC, V9B 1A6 Attention: Members of the Town of View Royal Variance Board
RE: 117 View Royal Avenue
The owners of this property, Cheyenne Perrin & Kyle Egger, are respectfully requesting the Board of Variance for relaxations to the R-1 requirements for fence and retaining wall heights. The relaxation is to allow the construction of a retaining wall to create a flat concrete patio open area on the east side of the home. This patio area will have a surrounding fence on the 3 open sides to create a sport court.
The proposed retaining wall will run westward from the existing residence towards the west side property line, stopping 1.00m - 3.28' away from the property line. This is to allow a meter wide landscape buffer between the proposed patio and the neighbouring property. The retaining wall will be a height of 3.00m - 9.84' and will have a 42" - 1.06m guard-rail on top. This makes the total measureable height of both items 4.06m - 13.34'.
The height of sides of the patio fence surround follows the height of the adjacent existing fence to remain, which is located at, or near, the property line to the West. This ensures that the Neighbour's southern view sightlines are not interrupted by this overheight area of the patio fence surround. The finish of the patio fence surround will match the existing property line fence to remain. Once the height of the fences has reached a height less than 6'-6" above the patio slab it will run horizontally along the sides, and rear (South end) of the patio.
This puts us off-sides with requirements set forth in the Town of View Royal Zoning Bylaw - 2014 No. 900 section 4.8 regarding Fences and Retaining Walls. Specifically we are requesting variances to items 4.8.1. in regards to Fence Height, 4.8.9. and 4.8.11. both in regards to Retaining Wall Height. We are requesting a variance to all three zoning items to allow the construction of the retaining wall and guard-rail to a height of 4.06m - 13.34'. The retaining wall and guard-rail heights are combined for all three zoning items due to zoning item 4.8.12. The highest point of the overall retaining wall and guard-rail structure will be at, or near the height of the existing black chain-link fence at their nearest points.
The reason we are respectfully requesting this variance is due to the slope of the lot providing no flat, usable, back yard space for the owner's family to enjoy. The existing grade is especially sloped in the side and rear yard which is furthering the problem of creating usable outdoor space. Please see the attached photos of the area in question showing the slope of the existing grade dug away at the proposed retaining wall.
Due to these factors we are respectfully requesting variances to the following items: Item 4.8.1. - Variance to maximum fence height from 2.00m - 6.56' to 4.06m - 13.34'. Item 4.8.9. - Variance to maximum retaining wall height from 1.20m - 3.93' to 4.06m - 13.34'. Item 4.8.11. - Variance to maximum retaining wall height from 2.00m - 6.56' to 4.06m - 13.34'.
Thank you for your time considering our request.
Aaron Mills Dezign Zone Developments Ltd.
