COUNCIL REPORT - Development Variance Permit Application No. 2013/03 – 335 Stewart Avenue
Staff report recommending the rejection of a variance permit to allow for gates higher than the maximum permitted fence height at 335 Stewart Avenue.
TOWN OF VIEW ROYAL COUNCIL REPORT
TO: Council DATE: May 30, 2013 FROM: Jeff Chow, MCIP, RPP, Senior Planner MEETING DATE: May 30, 2013 FILE NO.: 3090-20-2013/03
DEVELOPMENT VARIANCE PERMIT APPLICATION
335 Stewart Avenue
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT Development Variance Permit 2013/03 be rejected:
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 to vary the maximum fence height in a front yard as specified in Land Use Bylaw, 1990, No. 35 from a maximum of 1.0 m to 1.55 m to allow the construction of a gate at the entrance of the property.
BACKGROUND:
The 2685 m² subject property is zoned R-1: One Family Residential. The property is located near the south end of Stewart Avenue and backs onto Esquimalt Harbour. A single family dwelling exists on the property.
PROPOSAL
The applicant proposes to construct a 1.55 m tall gate at the entrance to the property (see Attachments 5 & 6) where the Land Use Bylaw, 1990 permits a maximum height of 1.0 m in a front yard. There would be one driveway gate that when closed would encroach approximately 10 cm onto the adjacent property at 333A Stewart Avenue (see Attachment 3 photos) to attach on to a post. To match the gates on the adjacent property, the gate post would be clad with a stone-type veneer and would be capped with cast concrete. The post would include decorative lighting, a mailbox and the house number. The gate would be low arched with open metal rails.
The applicant's reasons for the requested variances (Attachment 4) are as follows:
- "The property is at the end of Stewart Avenue and is adjacent to the public beach access. In nice weather there can be a lot of traffic and vehicles turning around... and it is not uncommon for cars to either drive or back into my clients' driveway to turn around and even in some cases park on the property."
- The property owners do not live on the property full time at the present and the gate would be an added measure of security when they are away from home.
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
The principal issues to consider in this application include the following:
- What is the impact on the adjacent properties and surrounding neighbourhood?
- What are the implications for emergency services?
- What are the policy implications?
- What are the alternatives to the requested variance?
1. Impact on Adjacent Properties and Surrounding Neighbourhood
Staff believes the structure of the proposed gate would have little impact on adjacent properties; however staff does not support the gating of properties because gates have a negative impact on the pedestrian-friendliness of the streetscape and gating one property could create a domino effect of requests for similar gates along the street. Modern home security technology such monitored alarms, motion activated lighting and on-site video surveillance are significantly less visually intrusive. Gates are not in accordance with the Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design principle of "eyes on the street".
2. Emergency Services
The BC Building Code and Fire Code are silent on the issue of gates for single family residential properties. In response to an emergency call, the Fire Department has equipment to cut down the gates if they were locked, however this would create some delay in accessing the dwelling. It is unknown if ambulance or police vehicles carry such equipment; if not, assistance from the Fire Department would be required.
3. Policy Implications
There are no planning policy implications. Variances are discretionary and decisions are made on the individual merits of each case.
4. Alternatives
The following are some of the alternatives available to the applicant without the need for a variance:
a. Constructing a 1.0 m tall gate The Land Use Bylaw would allow a 1.0 m tall gate in the location proposed. While staff does not support the concept of gates, the gate would provide a visual barrier to uninvited vehicle entry onto the property.
b. Locating the gates outside of the front yard The front yard defined as by the Land Use Bylaw as the width of the lot ending at the nearest wall of the principal building. A 2.0 m fence or gate would be permitted in this location but it would not address the applicants' concern about the entry and parking of uninvited vehicles on the property.
c. Awaiting the completion of the Land Use Bylaw review One potential consideration in the Land Use Bylaw review currently underway is to change the maximum permitted height of a fence in a residential front yard. Such a change would be discussed the public process for review of the draft bylaw, which has not yet begun.
CONCLUSION:
Staff does not support the application because the principle of gating properties would have negative impacts on the streetscape. Alternative options available include constructing a 1.0 m gate as permitted by the Land Use Bylaw, locating the gate at the front building line, or awaiting the future adoption of a new Zoning Bylaw.
ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION:
Should Council support the proposal, the following motion should be made:
THAT Development Variance Permit 2013/03 be approved to vary the maximum fence height in a front yard as specified in Land Use Bylaw, 1990, No. 35 from a maximum of 1.0m to a maximum of 1.55m as per the plans attached to the May 30, 2013 report from the Senior Planner.
THAT Development Variance Permit 2013/03 be issued subject to registration of an easement on 333A Stewart Avenue or other approval to permit encroachment of the gate.
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT Development Variance Permit 2013/03 be rejected:
Document Images
(3)
