ENVIRONMENTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT - SHORELINE AND NATURAL WATERCOURSE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AREA - 275 KERWOOD STREET

ENVIRONMENTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT - SHORELINE AND NATURAL WATERCOURSE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AREA - 275 KERWOOD STREET

RECOMMENDATION

THAT the report dated April 6, 2020 from the Community Planner titled “Environmental Development Permit – Shoreline and Natural Watercourse Development Permit Area – 275 Kerwood Street” be received for information.

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 an application for an Environmental Development Permit with variances to permit the construction of stairs, landscaping, a retaining wall, and the reconstruction of a boathouse to replace a previous boathouse, stairs and various structures straddling 275 Kerwood St and the adjacent property to the southeast.

BACKGROUND

The property is 866m² and zoned R-1: Detached Residential (Large Lot) and is adjacent to Esquimalt Harbour. There were (and still are) existing lawfully non-conforming structures on the property prior to the current proposal and partial (unauthorized) works, including a deck and stairs straddling the two properties, a boathouse, concrete stairs on the northwestern lot boundary, and dock pilings which had previously secured a seasonally-deployed ramp and float.

There was previously a house straddling the two lots, demolished several years ago. The boathouse pictured above was demolished and reconstructed without permit on the existing platform which projects over the natural boundary into Esquimalt Harbour (and thus DND property). A new survey was conducted in 2019 to better define the natural boundary for the subject property.

A stop work order was placed on the reconstruction of the boathouse in May of 2018, pictured as partially finished below. As the boathouse was completely removed before work was started on the new structure, it is new construction rather than a simple replacement.

CFB Esquimalt has been engaged with the applicant and the Town throughout the application process. Representatives from CFB Esquimalt are adamant that the boathouse not be used for habitation, and that there be no plumbing. These will be written as proposed conditions of the Development Permit.

PROJECT INFORMATION

The applicant has made application to finish the boathouse, landscape the property, and erect a retaining wall to prevent slumping of the uplands slope just below the rear of the boathouse. The intention is to get this finished in advance of constructing a dwelling on the property.

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

1. Applicant Letter – February 24, 2020
2. Land Survey – Explorer Land Surveying Inc. April 23, 2019
3. Landscape Plan – Lombard North Group – August 28, 2019
4. Esquimalt Harbour Small Project Environmental Screening Report – applicant – undated
5. Retaining Wall Plan Detail – Skyline Engineering – undated
6. Boathouse Plan Detail – KB Design – January 15, 2020
7. Marine Environment Assessment – Corvidae Environmental Consulting – November 2019
8. Environmental Review – FKW Environmental – December 31, 2019
9. Geotechnical Memorandum – Ryzuk Geotechnical – October 1, 2019
10. Transport Canada Approval – Transport Canada – December 11, 2019

ISSUES AND ANALYSIS

The proposal is for the construction of a new boathouse that replaces the old boathouse, new landscaping and stairs with retaining walls, and a retaining wall below the boathouse. Staff notes that an accessory building cannot be permitted to exist on the property without an associated principal dwelling; an Occupancy Permit would be required before the issuance of this Development Permit.

The proposed accessory building is 34m² in size (356 sq. ft.) in size. There is no floor area limit for an accessory building, but the total area for all accessory buildings on a property cannot exceed 60m². The other thing to note is that the building will contribute to the FSR on the property, which will necessitate the construction of a smaller principal dwelling on the property.

The image below shows the retaining walls in grey.

Environment

There are two professional environmental reports accompanying the application – the Environmental Review by FKW Environmental and the Marine Environment Assessment by Corvidae Environmental Consulting which specifically focuses on the marine aspect of the environmental impacts.

The Environmental Review by FKW has the following conclusions:

In summary, the proposed work will not disturb any rare or endangered species or ecosystems. Provided the measures and BMPs described in this review are followed, the proposed construction activities are not expected to have significant negative impacts to the current ecosystems of the 15m DPA setback from Esquimalt Harbour. If implemented, the suggested restoration activities would provide improvement over the current conditions for this coastal bedrock bluff, in particular for songbirds.

The Marine Environment Assessment has the following conclusions:

During the shoreline enhancements, boathouse repairs and dock installation, implementation of the mitigation measures recommended in this report, including measures to protect fish and fish habitat (Fisheries and Oceans Canada 2019), will minimize the potential impacts on the marine environment and will ensure compliance with the Fisheries Act (2019). Due to the small project footprint, limited duration, working during the least risk timing windows and replacement of existing pilings, the project impacts are expected to be low, providing these recommendations are followed.

Geotechnical

The Ryzuk Geotechnical Memo states that they consider the proposed construction to be feasible given their list of conditions.

Variances requested

• Variance to the setback from the natural boundary of the sea from 15m to 0m
• Variance to the prohibition on retaining wall construction within 15m of the natural boundary to the sea
• Variance to the height of a retaining wall from 1.2m to 2.5m
• Variance to the setback of an accessory building from 1.2m to 1m
• Variance to the maximum length of an accessory building from 7.5m to 9.1m

DISCUSSION

There are two issues here for Council to consider:

• The impact of the addition (and its construction) on the environment
• The impact of the variance on the use and enjoyment of adjacent properties

Demolishing the boathouse and building new necessitates the consideration of the boathouse as a new structure, as per Section 532 of the Local Government Act:

532 (1) If a building or other structure, the use of which does not conform to the provisions of a land use regulation bylaw, is damaged or destroyed to the extent of 75% or more of its value above its foundations, as determined by the building inspector, the structure must not be repaired or reconstructed except for a conforming use in accordance with the bylaw.

The former boathouse and structures prior to the non-permitted work were in very poor shape. It was unsafe to walk on and in them. The property has also needed a retaining wall to prevent further slumping of the slope behind the boathouse. Staff does not believe that the application will have a significant negative impact on the natural environment, and the retaining wall to prevent the slumping of the uplands is likely to be of benefit.

The application also certainly represents the improvement of safety, aesthetics and utility on the property for the owner in comparison to the past unsightly, unsafe structure. The structure’s impact on the neighbouring properties is another matter. The applicant would have been permitted to repair the structures within their existing dimensions without variance (but with a staff-delegated Environmental Development Permit). The one required retaining wall below the boathouse would have necessitated a Development Permit with a variance.

In rebuilding the structure, the overhang of the eaves was increased. In not consulting with the Town before proceeding with work, the applicant created a difficult situation. Were Council to want to recognize that this is a net benefit to the property compared to the prior structures as a whole, they could approve the application.

In considering the following:

• that such an application from a property owner with an undeveloped shoreline would almost certainly not receive a positive staff recommendation;
• that the application requires five variances to the Zoning Bylaw;
• that the adjoining neighbour to the northwest is strongly opposed to this application;
• that DND has expressed strong reservations to staff about this structure in the past, and the potential for this boathouse to be inhabited in the future;
• That the sum total of the visual impact of 2.5m tall retaining walls and a 9.1m long boathouse is significant from the water and from neighbouring properties;

Staff is not supportive of the application in its current form. Staff believes that a more modest proposal, potentially without a boathouse (or a substantially smaller boat house) and lower or more naturalized retaining walls, would be more in keeping with the character of the shoreline.

Staff is aware that the applicant also wishes to install a ramp and float in the future, which will only add to the visual impact of the foreshore and deep-water structures for the neighbours and provide additional impact on the natural environment. This will require another Development Permit with variance.

ALTERNATE RECOMMENDATION

Should Council wish to move forward with this application, staff recommends that the following conditions be put in place as part of the Development Permit:

1. That there be no inhabitation of the boathouse.
2. That there be no plumbing installed in the boathouse.
3. That all recommendations in all professional reports be implemented in construction.
4. That a landscape cost estimate be submitted and that the Town take 125% of that landscape cost estimate as security to ensure the work is completed.
5. That the Development Permit cannot be issued until a principal dwelling on the property be issued an Occupancy Permit.

RECOMMENDATION

THAT the report dated April 6, 2020 from the Community Planner titled “Environmental Development Permit – Shoreline and Natural Watercourse Development Permit Area – 275 Kerwood Street” be received for information.

SUBMITTED BY: J. Davison, MCIP RPP, Planner

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

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Applicant Letter – February 24, 2020
2. Reference Survey Plan - Explorer Land Surveying Inc.
3. Land Survey – Explorer Land Surveying Inc. April 23, 2019
4. Landscape Plan – Lombard North Group – August 28, 2019
5. Esquimalt Harbour Small Project Environmental Screening Report – applicant – undated
6. Retaining Wall Plan Detail – Skyline Engineering – undated
7. Boathouse Plan Survey Detail - Explorer Land Surveying Inc.
8. Boathouse Plan Detail – KB Design – January 15, 2020
9. Marine Environment Assessment – Corvidae Environmental Consulting – November 2019
10. Environmental Review – FKW Environmental – December 31, 2019
11. Geotechnical Memorandum – Ryzuk Geotechnical – October 1, 2019
12. Transport Canada Approval – Transport Canada – December 11, 2019