STAFF REPORT: DEVELOPMENT VARIANCE PERMIT – 2700 HERBATE RD
Staff report evaluating a variance request to reduce the side lot line setback for an accessory suite addition.
TOWN OF VIEW ROYAL COUNCIL REPORT
TO: Council DATE: February 10, 2016 FROM: J. Davison, MCIP RPP, Planner MEETING DATE: February 16, 2016 FILE NO.: 3090-20-2015/09
DEVELOPMENT VARIANCE PERMIT – 2700 HERBATE RD
RECOMMENDATION
THAT Council not approve Development Variance Permit 2015/09 as per the report from the Planner dated February 10, 2016.
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 (DVP) for 2700 Herbate Rd to approve the following variance:
- Variance to the side lot line from 7.5m to 4m
The applicant wishes to convert the existing non-conforming garage into a suite and attach it to the house, which is itself in a non-conforming siting. The subject property is within the Sensitive Terrestrial Ecosystem Development Permit Area but the area of proposed work is entirely in previously disturbed area and thus exempt from a Development Permit requirement. There is a requirement for Wildland/Urban Interface Fire Controls on the property.
This application is coming to Council after a December 8, 2015 report and presentation to Committee of the Whole which contemplated a similar proposal less than 1m from the property line. This revised proposal sites the building 4m from the property line.
BACKGROUND
The lot is one half of a two-lot bare land strata lot configuration in an A-1: Rural zoning. The site has an existing detached house and an existing separate garage, both of which are in a lawful non-conforming siting. The house is non-conforming on the west side, being 5.99m from the side lot line (minimum is 7.5m). The garage is currently 0.9m away from the side lot line to the east (minimum is 7.5m). The applicant purchased the lot in 2015, with current zoning regulations in place, and proposes to convert the existing garage into a suite.
The applicant had originally wanted to convert the garage into a suite without joining it to the house, but upon learning that a separated suite was not a permitted use in the Town, proposed the corridor option to meet the technical requirements that a suite be part of the principal dwelling. After a critical reception to the 0.9m variance at Committee of the Whole in December, the applicant has returned with a modified drawing showing a 4m requested setback, still down from the required 7.5m.
PROJECT INFORMATION
Proposal
The property is subject to the requirement to obtain a Development Variance Permit (DVP) pursuant to Section 922 of the Local Government Act. This DVP focuses on the consideration of the proposed variance impacting the use and enjoyment of the adjacent properties.
The applicant has submitted the following information in support of their application:
- Applicant's Statement – Applicant – September 28, 2015
- Architect's Statement – Finlayson Bonet Architecture – November 16, 2015
- Site Survey (Brad Cunnin Land Surveyor) – August 28, 2015
- Building Plans and Elevations – Finlayson Bonet Architecture – November 30, 2015
- Septic System Assessment – JRSC Ltd – October 27, 2015
- Domestic Well Water Quantity and Assessment – Thurber Engineering – December 12, 2005
- Wildland Urban Fire Interface Assessment – Strathcona Forestry Consulting – January 9, 2016
- Letters of Support from Neighbours (old – 0.9m setback)
Note from above that the applicant has provided technical reports indicating that the well water and septic systems have the capacity to serve an additional suite on the site. The applicant has supplied a Wildland Urban Fire Interface Assessment for the property.
The proposed Development Variance Permit addresses the following aspects:
- A variance to side lot line n the A-1: Rural zone from 7.5m to 4m.
Issues and Analysis
The applicant requests a variance to the side yard setback to 4m from 7.5m. In staff’s opinion the change makes two improvements over the previous proposal:
- It now permits easier passage to the rear yard on that side by vehicle, foot, etc.
- It decreases the fire interface control requirements on the neighbouring property
The increase in variance does not, in staff’s opinion, fundamentally change the issue at hand: that this is a use issue which should be dealt with by a rezoning process. The definition of a secondary suite within Zoning Bylaw No. 900, 2014 is as such:
"Secondary Suite" means a secondary and subordinate dwelling unit that is entirely contained within, and is subordinate to, a detached residential building in accordance with Section 4.1 of this bylaw.
One would stretch to consider the use of a garage to be consistent with a use intended to be ‘secondary and subordinate’ to a detached residential building. This proposal does not, in staff’s opinion, meet that definition. Instead, it is working to appropriate an accessory building which was constructed as an entirely different use on the property. The requirement for both a variance and a (rather pointless) corridor serves to underscore this fact.
The tool to address this properly is a rezoning, and staff’s recommendation in that case would certainly be to not adopt any such bylaw. It is not a good siting for such a use, in a purposefully low-density neighbourhood within which the Town's Official Community Plan specifically states that it is not an area where growth is desirable. The fire responses are longer than more urban areas, there is no piped servicing, no transit and it is within an environmentally sensitive area.
Variance Proposal
A variance application would ideally look to improve the property with no significant impacts to the use and enjoyment of adjacent properties. The ideal, supportable variance typically addresses a unique condition on the property which prevents the applicant from adhering to the letter of the bylaw while serving the spirit of it.
This application largely does the opposite. The corridor between the house and the proposed suite is a work-around that serves no party other than as a mechanism for the applicant to skirt the existing suite regulations. The proposal creates a swath of over 40m of contiguous house along the property, with no easy access to the rear yard from the front of the house. Both side yards would be less than the required 7.5m, at 4m on the southeast side and 6m on the northwest side.
The suite creates a new, more intensive use on the property 4m away from the adjoining lot at 2600 Herbate Rd, arguably impacting either the current and/or future enjoyment of the adjoining lot.
As part of the adoption of Zoning Bylaw No. 900, 2014, the property was part of a blanket rezone from the vestigial CRD Gb2: Greenbelt Residential zone to the Town’s A-1: Rural zone. With it, the property gained the permitted accessory use of an attached secondary suite. As such, the owner has the option to meet all Town bylaws and build a suite in the existing house, retaining the format of the stand-alone dwelling and detached garage which characterizes many rural and large-lot properties in View Royal. To build the corridor is, in staff’s opinion, not good planning and not in the spirit of the zoning or the intent of the suite regulations within Zoning Bylaw No. 900, 2014.
It is staff’s opinion that the requirement for a variance on top of a work-around to attach the suite to the house is evidence that the proposal does not meet the intent of the Zoning Bylaw.
Rural Environment
Part of the reasoning for the increased 7.5m setback in the A-1: Rural over the more urban setbacks of 1.5-2m is the remote and environmentally sensitive nature of the area. Wildland/urban fire interface issues are a major challenge in this area and the increased response time for Fire/EMS means that interface issues must be considered when siting buildings. Changing the use of the property in such a manner means that an additional occupancy exists within 4m of the property line in a fairly heavily forested portion of the municipality. Most of the required Wildland/Urban interface controls for construction would apply on the adjacent property. In the case where the 7.5m setback were maintained, the opposite would be true.
The applicant has provided a Wildland Urban Fire Interface Assessment for the property. It concludes:
A wildfire interface hazard/wildfire threat rating assessment of a new home proposed to replace an existing garage at 2700 Herbate Road determined the current hazard/threat rating is high. Factors contributing to the high rating include: fire department response time, location of subject property in relation to Thetis Lake Regional Park, amount and continuity of forest fuels in the area, lack of a community water supply in the local neighbourhood, and narrow, winding roads accessing the subject area.
In my professional opinion, if FireSmart recommendations provided in this report are followed, the interface fire threat rating can be reduced at the property. The capacity to draw emergency onsite water supply from Mackenzie Lake is an asset. On a broader scale, however, the local neighbourhood presents a significant challenge to fire protection from View Royal Fire Rescue in terms of response time and mitigating resources (equipment, water, etc.).
In conversation with the Fire Department, the property can meet Firesmart Building Controls on the site, but will not meet the interface distance requirements. The interface issue is not, in itself, reason to deny the variance. Instead, it is simply one factor in many.
ALTERNATE RECOMMENDATION
That Council approve the variance. Should Council choose to approve the variance, the following motion should be made:
THAT Council approve Development Variance Permit 2015/09 as per the report from the Planner dated February 10, 2016;
AND THAT fire interface building standards and site controls be maintained to the FireSmart standard and to the satisfaction of the Fire Department.
RECOMMENDATION
THAT Council not approve Development Variance Permit 2015/09 as per the report from the Planner dated February 10, 2016.
SUBMITTED BY: J. Davison MCIP RPP, Planner
REVIEWED BY: L. Chase MCIP RPP, Director of Development Services
ATTACHMENTS:
- Subject Property Map
- Subject Property Orthophoto
- Applicant’s Statement – Applicant – September 28, 2015
- Architect’s Statement – Finlayson Bonet Architecture – November 16, 2015
- Site Survey (Brad Cunnin Land Surveyor) – August 28, 2015
- Building Plan – Finlayson Bonet Architecture – February 2016
- Wildland Urban Fire Interface Assessment – Strathcona Forestry Consulting – January 9, 2016
- Letters of Support from Neighbours (old – 0.9m setback)
Document Images
(15)
