REQUEST FOR DECISION
DATE: February 25, 2015 Report No. DEV-15-009
TO: Laurie Hurst, Chief Administrative Officer
FROM: Trevor Parkes, Senior Planner
SUBJECT:
Title
Development Permit including Variances, 973 Wollaston Street
[PID 027-542-165, Strata Lot A, Section 11, Esquimalt District, Strata Plan VIS6589, Together with an interest in the Common Property in proportion to the Unit Entitlement of the Strata Lot as shown on Form V]
End
RECOMMENDATION:
Recommendation
That Council resolves that Development Permit No. DP000045, attached to Staff Report DEV-15-009 as Schedule ‘H’, authorizing the form and character and expansion of the rear deck as shown in the site photo stamped “Received February 25, 2015”, and in photos and drawings provided by the applicant, stamped “Received February 15, 2013”, and on the landscape plan stamped “Received January 12, 2015”, and sited as detailed on the survey plan prepared by Powell and Associates, stamped “Received February 15, 2013”, and including the following relaxations to Zoning Bylaw, 1992, No. 2050, for PID 027-542-165, Strata Lot A, Section 11, Esquimalt District, Strata Plan VIS6589, Together with an interest in the Common Property in proportion to the Unit Entitlement of the Strata Lot as shown on Form V [973 Wollaston Street], be denied
Zoning Bylaw, 1992, No. 2050, Section 67.52 (5) - Lot Coverage A 1% increase to the requirement that all principal buildings, accessory buildings and structures combined shall not cover more than 22% of the area of the parent lot. [i.e. increase from 22% to 23% lot coverage]
Zoning Bylaw, 1992, No. 2050, Section 67.52 (7)(a)(iii) Rear Setback - A 2.25 metre reduction to the requirement that no principal building shall be located within 7.9 metres of any rear lot line. [i.e. from 7.9 metres to 5.65 metres].
Body
RELEVANT POLICY:
Official Community Plan Bylaw, 2006, No. 2646
Zoning Bylaw, 1992, No. 2050
Development Application Procedures and Fees Bylaw, 2012, No. 2791
Advisory Planning Commission Bylaw, 2012, No. 2792
STRATEGIC RELEVANCE:
This Request For Decision does not directly relate to a specific strategic objective.
BACKGROUND:
Context
Applicant: Roman Olariu
Owners: Roman Olariu and Susanne Olariu
Property Size: Metric: 643 m2 Imperial: 6921.4 ft2
Existing Land Use: Single Family Dwelling
Surrounding Land Uses:
South: Single Family Residential
East: Single Family Residential
North: Single Family Residential
West: Single Family Residential
Existing Zoning: Comprehensive Development District No. 65 [CD No. 65]
Schedules:
“A” Key Map of Subject Property;
“B” 2011 and 2013 Orthophotographs of Subject Property;
“C” Development Permit including Variances Mail Notice [Mailed February 13, 2015];
“D” OCP Guidelines for Single Unit Infill Housing;
“E” CD-65 [Comprehensive Development District No. 65] zone;
“F” Tree Cutting Permit Letters 2012 and 2014;
“G” Applicant/ Owner Narrative;
“H” Development Permit No. DP000045;
Purpose of the Application
The applicant has built an addition to the deck located at the rear of the principal building, without the benefit of a Building Permit. This application for a Development Permit including Variances is required as the illegally installed deck contravenes the currently applicable Development Permit No.19/2007 as well as zoning regulations pursuant to the CD-65 zone [Schedule ‘E’].
The subject property was rezoned in 2008 allowing a subdivision of the property into two strata parcels. A new infill home has been constructed at 971 Wollaston Street. The infill parcel proposed in 2008 was smaller than the permitted parcel size within the Single Family Residential zone therefore Comprehensive Development District [CD No. 65] was created and site specific zoning regulations were written. Site specific zoning is written to accommodate a specific development proposal for a specific piece of land with the intention that, should the zoning be approved, no future alterations or additions will be accommodated on the site without the approval of Council.
CD No. 65 states that Lot Coverage shall cover not more than 22% of the parent lot. The expanded deck exceeds the permitted Lot Coverage by one percent [1%]. The minimum rear setback for a principal building in CD No. 65 is required to be not less than 7.9 metres. This measurement corresponded to the siting of the existing house prior to the recent expansion to the existing deck. The applicant is requesting a 2.25 metre reduction to this requirement to 5.65 metres to accommodate the expanded deck area.
Single Unit Infill Housing projects are subject to OCP Development Permit Guidelines and a Development Permit must be approved prior to the issuance of a Building Permit which must be consistent with the approved Development Permit. Development Permit No 19/ 2007 was issued December 3, 2007 and clearly shows the pre-existing deck as part of the landscape plan. As the expanded deck is inconsistent with the approved Development Permit No. 19/ 2007, a new Development Permit must be issued to replace the original prior to the consideration of a Building Permit. As the expanded deck also contravenes both the permitted Lot Coverage and the required Rear Setback regulations in the CD-65 zone, two variances to relax these requirements must also be approved.
Comments from Municipal Departments
The plans for this proposal were circulated to other departments and the following comments were received:
Building Services: Construction must conform to BC Building Code 2012 and Municipal Building Code Bylaw, 2002, No. 2538. Should a new Development Permit including Variances be approved, a Building Permit would be processed to ensure existing construction complies with BC Building Code requirements. Approval of a Building Permit would be subject to field inspection and structural upgrades to support columns and footings may be required.
Engineering Services: Engineering staff have completed a preliminary evaluation of Works and Services that would be required for the proposed construction. Staff confirms that the proposed construction does not impact the engineering aspects of the property.
Comments from the Advisory Planning Commission [APC]
This application was considered at the regular meeting of APC held on November 18, 2014. Staff confirmed that site specific zoning was in place when the owner purchased the property. A member inquired as to what changes, if any, had occurred on the property since the APC reviewed this application in 2013. The applicant confirmed that two large conifer trees had been removed from the southeastern portion of the rear yard with the express permission of Parks Services. Members stated that it was apparent that the work completed was substantial enough to require a Building Permit. A member stated that, contrary to the applicant’s statement, the proposed variance is a major variance to the rear setback. The application was forwarded to Council with a recommendation of denial.
Development Services staff coordinated with Parks Services staff after the APC meeting to secure the Tree Cutting Permit Letters [Schedule ‘F’] permitting the removal of three significant trees from the property since 2012. Parks staff confirmed that all three trees were removed for safety reasons and the applicant has committed to installing three new trees on the property.
ISSUES:
1. Rationale for Selected Option
An underlying tenet of Comprehensive Development District [CD] zoning, written to accommodate site specific infill housing projects, has been that once development is achieved consistent with the approved zoning and Development Permit the site offers no further development potential. It is for this reason CD zones are tailored to accommodate specific conditions of a proposed development scheme rather than having established standards for zoning criteria such as setbacks, lot coverage, and parcel area requirements. During the CD zoning process, concerned local residents often seek assurances that the proposed development represents the maximum potential for the site.
Approval of relaxations to zoning regulations [variances] on any one site does not set precedence within the community. However, permitting further development on a property within a CD zone would represent a departure from the perception that CD zoned sites are “built out” and could result in residents questioning the integrity of the CD zoning process in the future.
The proposed increase in Lot Coverage is not substantial; however, the requested 2.25 metres reduction to the rear setback represents a significant encroachment into the rear setback whether one references the specific zoning regulations for CD No. 65 or the Township’s Single Family Residential [RS-1] zoning.
OCP Guidelines for Single Unit Infill Housing [Schedule ‘D’], Section 9.9.4.3(b) states that windows, decks and patios should be located so as to minimize intrusion onto the privacy of adjacent properties. Staff does not consider the addition to the deck at 973 Wollaston Street to be in accordance with this guideline as the extended deck now overlooks the rear yards of 977 Wollaston Street and 971 Wollaston Street as well as 968 Dunsmuir Road and 972 Dunsmuir Road.
For these reasons staff recommends this application for a Development Permit including Variances be denied and that Council direct staff to ensure the building be brought into compliance with the CD No. 65 zone.
2. Organizational Implications
This Request for Decision has no organizational implications.
3. Financial Implications
This Request for Decision has no financial implications.
4. Sustainability & Environmental Implications
The installation of the deck addition and associated grade level patio expansion has marginally decreased the amount of permeable surface on the site. Notwithstanding this change, staff has no concerns regarding water retention to this site.
5. Communication & Engagement
As this is an application for a Development Permit including Variances, notices were mailed to owners and occupiers of parcels within 50 metres [164 ft.] of the subject property on February 13, 2015 indicating that Council would be considering the requested Development Permit including Variances on Monday, March 2, 2015 [Schedule ‘C’]. To date, the Township has received one response from an adjacent neighbour stating that they have no objections to the proposed variances.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Council deny Development Permit No. DP000045.
2. Council approve Development Permit No. DP000045, including Variances, and direct staff to issue the permit and register a notice on the property title. Should Council resolve to approve the Development Permit, staff request that the issuance of Development Permit No. DP000045 be made conditional upon the applicant providing a revised landscape plan detailing the expanded deck and the landscaping and hardscaping currently installed and that proposed for the property.