Council Report: Lot Frontage Exemption – 156 View Royal Avenue / 244 Fenton Road
A report seeking a lot frontage exemption for a proposed subdivision into four lots where three lots do not meet the minimum 10% perimeter frontage requirement.
TOWN OF VIEW ROYAL
Council Report
TO: Council DATE: February 14, 2012 FROM: Jeff Chow, Senior Planner MEETING DATE: February 21, 2012 FILE NO.: 156 View Royal Avenue / 244 Fenton Road
Lot Frontage Exemption – 156 View Royal Avenue / 244 Fenton Road
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT an exemption of lot frontage requirements for Proposed Lots 2, 3, and 4 be approved as per the plans attached to the February 14, 2012 report from the Senior Planner.
CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER’S COMMENTS:
I concur with the recommendation.
DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES’ COMMENTS:
I concur with the recommendation.
DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING’S COMMENTS:
I concur with the recommendation.
PURPOSE OF REPORT:
The purpose of this report is to present the request lot frontage exemptions for a proposed subdivision application to create two additional lots at 156 View Royal Avenue and 244 Fenton Road.
BACKGROUND:
The subject properties are zoned One Family Residential (Large Lot): R-1 and each contain one single family dwelling. The 3487.2 m² parcel at 156 View Royal Avenue has frontages on View Royal Avenue and Fenton Road. The View Royal Avenue frontage is treed and has a slope of approximately 25%. Driveway access is from Fenton Road.
The 2020.1 m² parcel at 244 Fenton Road also has two frontages: a driveway access from Fenton Road and a 0.91 m wide, 55 m long panhandle connection to Plowright Road. This narrow panhandle strip is treed and impassable.
PROPOSAL:
The applicants request exemptions to frontage requirements so that a subdivision application for two additional fee simple lots can be submitted. Section 944 (1) (a) of the Local Government Act requires that if a parcel being created by a subdivision fronts on a highway (i.e. road), the minimum frontage on the highway must be a minimum of 10% of the perimeter of the parcel. Section 944 (2) of the Local Government Act allows local government to exempt these requirements. The requested exemptions are as follows:
| Proposed Lot | Required Road Frontage | Proposed Road Frontage |
|---|---|---|
| 2 | 10% | 4% |
| 3 | 10% | 6% |
| 4 | 10% | 0.1% |
The two existing dwellings are proposed to be retained. The applicant has submitted the following information in support of their application:
- Applicant’s Statement – Jan. 4, 2012
- BC Land Surveyor’s Plan of Proposed Subdivision – Glen Mitchell Land Surveying, Inc.- Nov. 30, 2011
ANALYSIS:
The proposal can be supported because it would permit a subdivision application that would include a road dedication at the end of Fenton Road. The road end is substandard and appears to encroach onto the properties. The road dedication would expand and improve the vehicle turnaround area (see Attachment 4).
The requested 4% road frontage for Proposed Lot 2 is due to its large size (2330 m²) and its depth (over 70 m). The driveway frontage would actually increase from 5.8 m to 9.5 m because of the proposed road dedication.
The requested 6% road frontage for Proposed Lot 3 would permit a road frontage of 7.3 m, which can accommodate a double-wide driveway.
The requested 0.1% road frontage for Proposed Lot 4 is due to the large extent of the perimeter that is a result of the (55 m) long and unusually narrow panhandle strip fronting Plowright Road. The frontage on Fenton Road would be reasonably wide at 11.6 m (2.4%).
Consideration of the frontage exemption is requested as a precursor to the subdivision process. Proposed lot width, depth and area in the submitted plans are in accordance with Land Use Bylaw requirements. Any other subdivision related issues such as servicing and tree retention will be addressed through the application process. Additional traffic generated in the neighbourhood would not be significant.
ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Alternative #1
An alternative would be to decline the request.
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT an exemption of lot frontage requirements for Proposed Lots 2, 3, and 4 be approved as per the plans attached to the February 14, 2012 report from the Senior Planner.
SUBMITTED BY: J. Chow, Senior Planner
REVIEWED BY: L. Chase, MCIP, Director of Development Services
ATTACHMENTS:
- Subject Property Map
- Subject Property Orthophoto
- Applicant’s Statement – Jan. 4, 2012
- BC land Surveyor’s Proposed Subdivision, Glen Mitchell Land Surveying, Inc.- Nov. 30, 2011
