Applicant Response to Staff Report (May 4, 2020)

Troy and Sue-Anne Carter 8 Eaton Avenue Victoria, BC V8Z 5E1

May 4 , 2020

Town of View Royal Mayor and Council 45 View Royal Avenue Victoria, BC V9A 1A6

Mayor and Council,

Having just read the Report to Council and given we are unable to be there in person to answer any questions or plead our case to Mayor and Council, we feel we must clarify and comment on a few things prior to Council’s review.

In response to the letter submitted by 10 Eaton Avenue:

(1) The ‘laurel’ hedge referred to in 10 Eaton Avenue’s letter as ‘our hedge’ is incorrect. It is a Bay Laurel (Laurus Nobilis) and it is legally on our (8 Eaton Avenue) property. We paid to have a legal survey conducted specifically to establish property lines for 8 Eaton Avenue. The ‘hedge’ was surveyed to be fully within our property line. In fact, there is property additionally over the fence line (see the survey for specific fence line and property line information) with 10 Eaton Ave that we have no intention of reclaiming or moving at this time. The hedge is not protected or deemed necessary to identify so it was not added onto the survey.

(2) The ‘recreation vehicle’ referred to in the Report to Council is not a vehicle at all, but it is an undersized ‘import camperette’. It is smaller than a normal sized camper and is not motorized. It is stored on camper jacks and placed on wooden brackets for stability. It belongs to our son and we are storing it temporarily.

(3) The only other ‘vehicle’ stored in that area is a 3 year old (newly purchased) utility trailer. Very rarely are any vehicles stored in this area, but occasionally, if a vehicle was purchased by one of our sons in the past, it was stored temporarily if unlicensed until insured. This was never more than 1-5 days to arrange transfer papers and insurance as it is illegal to leave an unlicensed vehicle out on the street. We no longer have any children living at home, so this will be almost unnecessary now.

(4) In rebutting the issue of the front door versus side yard and rear yard, we sympathize with the Brasset’s with their lack of building separation and “front door” issue. We have communicated with them from the idea stage of this project that we would do everything we can to mitigate and minimize any disruption to their quality of life and enjoyment of their home. We do feel however we are being penalized for their front door being in their side yard.

This drawing taken from the View Royal Zoning Bylaw is the exact depiction of what our lot situation is:

“Zone” means an area of land established under Section 6 of this Bylaw and the Schedule B Zoning Map of this Bylaw, and subject to regulation in accordance with this Bylaw.

We are sympathetic to their front door being right near the property line given there should be much more of a setback, if it were treated as a front yard. They simply cannot have it both ways in benefitting from a side yard setback as their actual ‘front yard’ and penalizing the neighbours for an accessory building in our ‘rear’ yard. We realize in asking for a Development Variance Permit that Council has the right to enforce the setback, but that setback amounts to roughly $263 per inch to move that footing. (based on the conservative side of our informal estimate of $5000 to re-pour the footings, redo the entire foundation base, have construction drawings redone, have the property resurveyed for elevations, soil removal and possible permits associated, concrete disposal costs and any other unanticipated incidentals that could occur). That is cost inhibitive to the project. Our entire budget is $10,000 as we are building it with the help of family and friends.

(5) For site lines from 10 Eaton Avenue about 75% of our property is not visible from 10 Eaton Avenue’s windows or deck, due to our hedge and the way the property is set back and situated. The above graphic is almost an exact replica of our three neighbouring properties. (With 1269 Burnside Rd to the East of us being the 3rd property).

(6) The proposed accessory building meets all other height and zoning requirements. It was purposely designed with a shed roof to minimize site lines to the neighbours without an imposing peak roof line as we opted for a sloped shed roof style to maintain the health of 3 newly planted Portuguese Laurel trees on the Eastern property line (1269 Burnside Rd) as this would maintain their sun exposure. It also minimized the site line staring into a building, seen from the Brasset’s only 2 windows we can see on that side of their house. One of which is a very small bathroom window. The only other window seen is a smaller and not directly in line with the proposed accessory building, nor will there be doors opening to that area for noise. The accessory building door will be street facing. Currently, Troy works openly with wood working tools in that lower area of the driveway quite often with no complaints or comments to date. In fact, his woodworking neighbourhood projects are sought after and highly praised.

Text annotations adjacent to images:

• These are the 2 windows at 10 Eaton Avenue
• Rear height of Accessory bldg. height
• Height of existing fence at 1269 Burnside Rd that 10 Eaton looks directly out their front door to.
• View from standing at 10 Eaton Avenue’s front door looking at the adjoining fence panel at 1269 Burnside Rd.
• The chain link at the corner of all 3 properties is here.

(6) We also do not have any other options as stated in the 10 Eaton Avenue letter. This was discussed at length with 10 Eaton Avenue. They are aware that we cannot build to the north of the property due to gas and water lines coming into the property on that side as well as our desire to minimize any tree removal on the property, nor could we build on the upper part of the backyard due to the sewer easement. This was discussed with them several times when we met with them.

(7) We are willing to change the building plans to alleviate the need to have the eaves project into the setback (Variance 1). We just wanted a more aesthetically pleasing look than just a blocked shed roof with no gutters. We have discussed this with our builder and this can be eliminated entirely should Council desire it. We can amend the plans to reflect the change immediately and could resubmit amended plans at Council’s request.

In summary, it is unfortunate that we find ourselves in this circumstance. We were unable to see the letter our neighbours at 10 Eaton Avenue wrote to View Royal until Friday evening (May 1st) when the View Royal Council Agenda was published online. The letter was not shared with us beforehand, by 10 Eaton Avenue. We were aware the Brasset’s had some concerns but they did not communicate exactly what they were so we were unable to deal with the individual issues they had. We approached them twice to ask for their letter of support or non-support and were told ‘they were still processing their answer’. They did not let us know they were not supporting our application nor did they allow us an opportunity to see their letter before it was published within this Agenda package, so we could mitigate and address their concerns. We were not given any opportunity to try and work out any compromise or work on a solution with them. They decided firmly to address their concerns with Mayor and Council only. We are sincerely disappointed by this. We had hoped for a better outcome and solution prior to coming to Council.