BOV-03-14 – WALTERS

1635782

REPORT TO THE JUAN DE FUCA BOARD OF VARIANCE MEETING OF MONDAY, JANUARY 5, 2015

File No: BOV-03-14

Applicant: Martin and Sandra Walters c/o West Coast Design

Location: 7837 Manatu Road

Legal: Lot 1, Section 44, Sooke District, Plan 14181

Zoning: Rural Residential Two (RR-2)

Land Use Designation: Settlement Area 1

Adjacent Uses: N – Vacant / Agricultural S – Kemp Lake W – Agricultural E – Residential

REQUESTED VARIANCE

The applicant is requesting relief from the Board of Variance in accordance with Section 901(1)(a) of the Local Government Act (LGA) to relax the side yard setback of the Rural Residential Two (RR-2) zone from 6 m to 3.19 m for the purpose of renovating and expanding the second-storey building area of the single-family dwelling.

STAFF COMMENTS

This 0.08 ha waterfront property is located at 7837 Manatu Road in Otter Point (Appendix 1). The property was created by subdivision in 1960 and a single-family dwelling was constructed in 1983. At that time, the property was zoned Rural Residential (AR) in Sooke Electoral Area Zoning Bylaw No. 282 and the building siting was approved based on the AR zone requirement that: “the sum of the widths of the two side yards for a one-family or a two-family dwelling shall be not less than 15 feet, and no side yard shall be less than 5 feet…”.

The Juan de Fuca Land Use Bylaw, 1992, Bylaw No. 2040 was adopted in 1993 and zoned this property Rural Residential Two (RR-2). The RR-2 zone establishes a 6 m side yard setback, resulting in the building being non-conforming to siting (Appendix 2). The new owners wish to renovate the existing dwelling, increase the roof height and expand the floor area on the second storey (Appendix 3). Although the building footprint will not encroach further into the setback, the building area will be renovated and expanded within the 6 m side yard setback, therefore a variance is required. The survey (Appendix 2) indicates additional structures exist on the property; however, no CRD approvals have been granted for these buildings. At this time, the new owners only wish to request a variance to structurally alter the dwelling.

Pursuant to Section 901 (1) of the LGA, a person may apply to a Board of Variance if compliance with a bylaw respecting siting, dimension or size of a building would cause the person hardship. Section 901 (2) establishes that the Board of Variance may order that a minor variance be permitted from the requirements of the bylaw if the Board of Variance is of the opinion that the variance does not:

(i) result in inappropriate development of the site, (i.1) adversely affect the natural environment, (ii) substantially affect the use and enjoyment of adjacent land, (iii) vary permitted uses and densities under the applicable bylaw, or (iv) defeat the intent of the bylaw.

Report to the JDF BOV – January 5, 2015 BOV-03-14 2

1635782

The subject property is already developed, as are the adjacent parcels. The proposed renovation is limited to the existing footprint and the proposal to increase the height of the building conforms to the 9 m height requirement of the RR-2 zone. The 6 m side yard requirement of the RR-2 zone encompasses a considerable area of the narrow 0.08 ha parcel resulting in a limited building area outside of the 6 m setback. By adding to the second storey, the building footprint remains the same and therefore does not impact the 25% lot coverage permitted by the RR-2 zone.

Section 901(3) of the LGA states that the Board of Variance must not make an order that would be in conflict with a covenant, a permit or a floodplain specification. There are no covenants registered on title of the property. The existing structure meets the floodplain specifications established in Part 5 of Bylaw No. 2040 and, although the existing structure is within the 30 m Development Permit Area No. 3: Watercourses and Wetlands Areas designation in the Otter Point Official Community Plan, Bylaw No. 3819, a development permit is not required as “external alterations, including adding a second storey, that are entirely within the building footprint” are exempt as per Section 6.2 3] of Bylaw No. 3819. As the building proposal is exempt from a development permit and complies with the floodplain regulations established in Part 5 of Bylaw No. 2040, the application is not in conflict with Section 901(3) of the LGA.

An environmental professional has submitted a report addressing potential impacts of the construction activity on Kemp Lake (Appendix 4). The report suggests there is low risk to Kemp Lake and existing riparian habitat from the development and recommends erecting a silt fence between the deck and the lake in order to prevent deleterious materials from entering the lake during construction. The recommended best management practices outlined in the report may form conditions of the building permit if a variance is granted.

Pursuant to the Juan de Fuca Board of Variance Bylaw, Bylaw No. 3839, notification letters have been sent to owner and occupants within 50 m of the subject property. Subject to any comments received by the public, the proposed renovation is not expected to substantially affect the use and enjoyment of adjacent land. Based on the above, staff concludes that granting the requested variance can be considered by Board of Variance.

OUTLINE MOTION

Having considered the matters set out in S. 901 (2)(c) of the LGA, and having found that undue hardship would be caused to the applicant if Part 2, Section 6.07(b) of Bylaw No. 2040 is complied with, the Board of Variance (APPROVES / NOT APPROVES) the application BOV-03-14 to vary the side yard setback from 6 m to 3.19 m on Lot 1, Section 44, Sooke District, Plan 14181 as shown in the Site Survey from Island Land Surveying Ltd. dated October 3, 2014 (Appendix 2) for the purpose of renovating and expanding the second-storey building area as shown in the Building Plans from West Coast Design & Development Services dated May 26, 2014 (Appendix 3) subject to construction being substantially completed within two years of the approval of the variance or the variance will terminate.

______________________ _____________________________ Emma Taylorr, MCIP, RPP June Klassen, MCIP, RPP Planner Manager, Local Area Planning

Appendices: 1. Location Map 2. Site Plan 3. Building Plans 4. Biologist’s Report

Report to the JDF BOV – January 5, 2015 BOV-03-14 3

1635782

Appendix 1: Location Map

Report to the JDF BOV – January 5, 2015 BOV-03-14 4

1635782

Appendix 2: Site Plan

Report to the JDF BOV – January 5, 2015 BOV-03-14 5

1635782

Report to the JDF BOV – January 5, 2015 BOV-03-14 6

1635782

Appendix 3: Building Plans

Report to the JDF BOV – January 5, 2015 BOV-03-14 7

1635782

Report to the JDF BOV – January 5, 2015 BOV-03-14 8

1635782

Report to the JDF BOV – January 5, 2015 BOV-03-14 9

1635782

Appendix 4: Environmental Report

Report to the JDF BOV – January 5, 2015 BOV-03-14 10

1635782

Report to the JDF BOV – January 5, 2015 BOV-03-14 11

1635782