REGIONAL DISTRICT OF CENTRAL KOOTENAY 

Committee Report   

Date of Report:  March 6, 2017 Date & Type of Meeting:  March 15, 2017     Rural Affairs Committee Author:  Kristin Aasen, Planner Subject:  DEVELOPMENT VARIANCE PERMIT ‐ RENNIE File:  09\4270\20\2017\V1701J‐07289.275‐RENNIE‐DVP000150 

SECTION 1:  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

The purpose of this report is to recommend that the Board issue a Development Variance Permit for an accessory building under Zoning Bylaw No. 1675, 2004 for the following: 

1. To enable the construction of an accessory building with a height increased from 6 meters to 7.5 meters;  and 

2. To enable the construction of an accessory building with a size increased from 54 square meters to 150 square meters. 

The Committee should note that this floor area is smaller than that proposed by the applicant. 

SECTION 2:  BACKGROUND  / ANALYSIS 

Owners:  Laura  and John Rennie        Address:  1346 McPhee Road, Ootischenia, BC         Electoral Area:  J     OCP designation: Suburban Residential 1 (SR1)          Zoning: Ootischenia Suburban Residential (R1A)      

 

Figure 1:  Ortho‐photo of subject property (outlined in yellow). 

Development Variance Permit ‐ Rennie     Page 2 March 15, 2017      2.1 PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION/ SITE CONTEXT The 2.71 acre (1.09 hectare) subject property is zoned Ootischenia Suburban Residential (R1A) under Zoning Bylaw No. 1675, 2004. Surrounding properties to the north, west and south are developed residentially and zoned R1A. To the east is Crown Land zoned ‘Open Space.’ Servicing is by the Ootischenia Improvement District and on‐site wastewater disposal. The BC Assessment code is Single Family Dwelling/ Duplex.   The applicants are seeking a Development Variance Permit (DVP) to increase the maximum size of an accessory building from 54m2 to 223m2. The building is also proposed over the permitted height.  Under the Ootischenia Suburban Residential (R1A) zone, the maximum size of any accessory building shall not exceed 54 square metres (581 square feet). The garage is proposed at 2400 square feet (60 by 40 feet) or 223 square meters (18 by 12 meters) in floor area, over four times the permitted size. The height is proposed to be 23.5 feet (7.5 meters). “Height” is defined as the vertical distance measured from the average finished ground level at the perimeter of a building to the highest point of the structure.   Please refer to the site plan in Attachment A indicating the location of current and proposed buildings and landscaping. The applicants are proposing to install finishing details on the garage that complements the residence in order to minimize the visual impact to neighbours. The proposed use is for personal storage of boats, tractors, vehicles, equipment and recreational vehicles.   2.3 REFERRAL COMMENTS Neighbourhood impact: The proposal was referred to 14 surrounding property owners. No responses were received at the time of printing this report on March 6, 2017.   Agency impact: The proposal was referred to agencies and stakeholders, who provided the following responses:   Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, Habitat Biologists, February 3, 2017 The Ministry of Forests, Lands & Natural Resource Operations – Habitat Division –  has reviewed this variance request and has determined that this project should not impact the Resource Management Divisions legislated responsibilities.    No response was received from: 

RDCK Building Services 

Area J Advisory Planning Commission 

Ministry of Transportation & Infrastructure 

Ootischenia Irrigation District   2.3 CURRENT DEVELOPMENT POLICIES  Zoning Bylaw No. 1675, 2004 The subject property is zoned Ootischenia Suburban Residential (R1A) under the Zoning Bylaw No. 1675, 2004. Section 801(8) limits the size of any accessory building to 54 square metres (581 ft2). The structure is otherwise consistent with the Ootischenia Suburban Residential zone, including the maximum site coverage of 50 percent, residential and hobby farm use.   

Development Variance Permit ‐ Rennie     Page 3 March 15, 2017      Although decisions on Development Variance Permits do not set legal precedence, they may create expectations in the community. Previously considered DVPs for accessory buildings exceeding the 54m2 in the R1A zone are as follows:  

Year  Name  Address Property Size 

Building Type Variance From 

Variance To 

Outcome 

2016  Kazakoff  1282 McPhee Road  0.9 ha  Garage/ shop  54 m2  66 m2  Issued 

2016  Ludwar  887 Waterloo Road  0.4 ha  Garage/ shop   54 m2   133 m2  Issued  

2015  Woodcox  935 Columbia Road  0.5 ha  Garage/workshop  54m2  223m2  Issued 

2015  Rodrigues  972 Waterloo Road  0.4 ha  Garage/workshop  54m2  90m2  Issued 

2014  Gilmore  1279 Columbia Road  0.4 ha  Garage/workshop  54m2  100m2  Issued 

2013  Somerville 1008 Bridgeview Crescent 

0.4 ha  Garage/workshop  54m2  89m2  Issued 

2012  Graham  932 Waterloo Road  0.34 ha  Garage/workshop  54m2  73m2  Issued 

2012  Martin  1270 Columbia Road  0.84 ha  Hayshed  54m2  106m2  Issued 

2012  Fardal  842 Waterloo Road  0.2 ha  Garage/workshop  54m2  64m2  Issued 

2011  Chernoff 1048 Bridgeview Crescent 

0.28 ha  Garage/workshop  54m2  243m2  Denied 

2011  Postnikoff  1372 McPhee Road  1.13 ha  Garage/workshop  54m2  73m2  Issued 

2007  Ricalton  1844 Brilliant Road  0.17 ha  Garage/workshop  54m2  84m2  Issued 

 Kootenay‐Columbia Rivers Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 1157, 1996 (OCP) The subject property is designated Suburban Residential (SR1) under the Kootenay‐Columbia Rivers Official Community Plan (OCP). General Residential Objectives consist of:  

2.1.2 To consider development proposals in relation to the provision of services.  2.1.6 To maintain the rural character, environmental integrity, the social and cultural diversity of the Plan Area.  

 The OCP articulates a specific policy for Ootischenia with respect to the maximum acceptable size of accessory buildings in the community:  

3.10.3.1.12 On land designated Ootischenia Suburban Residential as shown on Schedule ‘B’ the gross floor area of an accessory building or structure shall not exceed 150 square meters and the total gross floor area devoted to all accessory buildings and structures shall not exceed the cumulative gross floor area of all permitted dwellings.  

 

SECTION 3:  DETAILED ANALYSIS 

a. Financial Considerations – Cost and Resource Allocations: 

Included in Financial Plan:  ☐  YES  ☒  NO  Financial Plan Amendment:  ☐  YES  ☒  NO 

Debt Bylaw Required:   ☐  YES  ☒  NO  Public/Gov’t Approvals req’d:  ☐  YES  ☒  NO 

As per Planning Procedures and Fees Bylaw No. 2457, 2015 the application fee of $500 was paid in full. 

b. Legislative Considerations (Applicable Policies and/or Bylaws): 

Under Section 498 of the Local Government Act, the Board has the authority to vary provisions of a zoning bylaw (other than use or density) through Development Variance Permits. Staff note the volume of 

Development Variance Permit ‐ Rennie     Page 4 March 15, 2017      variance requests related to accessory building size in light of the forthcoming community planning review in Electoral Area J. 

c. Environmental Considerations: 

The property has already been cleared of native vegetation, so none anticipated by this proposal. The Habitat Branch had no concerns from the perspective of provincial legislation. 

d. Social Considerations: 

Notification to neighbours did not identify any impact or conflict associated with the proposal.  

e. Economic Considerations: 

None anticipated. 

f. Communication Considerations: 

This application was circulated to property owners and occupiers within 100 meters of the subject property in accordance with the Local Government Act. The decision of the Board will be communicated to the applicant. 

g. Staffing/Departmental Workplan Considerations: 

Should the Board grant the variance, staff would issue the permit and register notice with the Land Title Survey Authority. The applicant would then apply for a building permit.    

SECTION 4:  OPTIONS & PROS / CONS 

Approving the requested variances would enable the landowners to obtain a building permit and construct a garage over four times the size and 1.1 meter over height of an accessory building in the R1A zone. While the maximum size of an accessory building on the subject property may be 54m2, the R1A zone does not prohibit the construction of multiple accessory buildings on the property. If this proposal was denied, the zoning would not prohibit the construction of four accessory buildings to reach the requested 223 square meter floor area.   PROS 

The subject property is approximately 1.09 hectares, which is roughly 5.5 times larger than the 0.2 hectare minimum lot size of the Ootischenia Suburban Residential (R1A) zone. 

The proposed site is largely buffered by mature trees on McPhee Road. Additional conifers have been planted between the building site and McPhee Road and the neighbouring parcel to the south. There is a gap in landscaping in the south west corner of the parcel, which is intended to enable the applicant to establish a future additional road access to facilitate towing a large boat. 

No objections were raised by the neighbourhood.  

The OCP supports consideration of 150m2 as the maximum size of an accessory building in Ootischenia, subject to an approved variance. 

If the variance is denied, the applicant could construct four accessory buildings to achieve the desired accessory building floor area.  

The applicants intend to add finishing details to the shop to maintain residential character with the surrounding area. The applicant proposed building details consisting of hardie plank lap siding, asphalt shingles and bump out details and the gable peaks to match the house in colour and appearance.    

Development Variance Permit ‐ Rennie     Page 5 March 15, 2017      CONS 

The proposed accessory building is over four times larger than the maximum size permitted under the R1A zone. 

The proposed 223m2, which is 73m2 (785 ft2) larger than contemplated under the Official Community Plan.  

 Option 1: Approve a reduced size Staff recommendation is to issue a variance up to the maximum size contemplated in the Official Community Plan. While an OCP is not regulatory, Section 478 “Effect of official community plan” of the Local Government Act requires that all bylaws or works undertaken by a board after the adoption of an official community plan must be consistent with the relevant plan. Policy 3.10.3.1.12 is strongly worded, invoking ‘shall’ rather than ‘should’ or ‘may’ (on lands designated SR1, the gross floor area of an accessory building shall not exceed 150 square meters and the total gross floor area devoted to all accessory buildings and structures shall not exceed the cumulative gross floor area of all permitted dwellings). The dwelling unit is approximately the same floor area of the proposed garage.  Option 2: Approve the requested size The Board may issue the Development Variance Permit for requested 223 square meters for the accessory building. The Board is not bound to a specific OCP policy in the decision on whether to issue a variance, and may note that the plan is 20 years old this year. The Board may question whether the OCP continues to express community values in 2016.  Option 3: Refusal Denial of the Development Variance Permit may compel the landowners to construct multiple accessory buildings for their desired floor area, or make use of the off‐site storage. 

SECTION 5:  RECOMMENDATION 

That the Board ISSUE Development Variance Permit V1701J to Laura and John Rennie for the property at 1346 McPhee Road, Ootischenia, BC and legally described as Lot 53 District Lot 4598 Kootenay District Plan 4924 (PID: 010‐138‐498) to vary:   

a. Section 8(7) of Zoning Bylaw No. 1675, 2004, to enable the construction of an accessory building with a height increased from  6 meters  to 7.5 meters; and   

b. Section 8(8) of Zoning Bylaw No. 1675, 2004, to enable the construction of an accessory building with a size increased from 54 square meters to 150 square meters.  

Respectfully submitted, 

Signature:            Kristin Aasen Name:  Kristin Aasen, Planner  

CONCURRENCE  Initials: 

Planning Manager General Manager of Development Services Chief Administrative Officer  Attachment A – Draft Development Variance Permit V1701J Attachment B – Applicant letter  

REGIONAL DISTRICT OF CENTRAL KOOTENAY 

DEVELOPMENT VARIANCE PERMITPlanning File No. V1701J 

Date:  March 16, 2017  To:      Laura and John Rennie  

Issued pursuant to Section 498 of the Local Government Act 

ADMINISTRATION 1. This Development Variance Permit (DVP) is issued subject to compliance with all of the bylaws of

the Regional District of Central Kootenay (RDCK) applicable thereto, except as specifically varied orsupplemented by this Permit.

2. The land described shall be developed strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions andprovisions of this DVP, and any plans and specifications attached to this Permit that shall form apart thereof.

3. This DVP is not a Building Permit.

APPLICABILITY 4. This DVP applies to and only to those lands within the RDCK described below, and any and all

buildings, structures and other development thereon, substantially in accordance with Schedules‘1’,  ‘2’ and ‘3’:

Address: 1346 McPhee Road, Ootischenia, BCLegal: LOT 53 PLAN NEP4924 DISTRICT LOT 4598 KOOTENAY LAND DISTRICTPID: 010‐138‐498

CONDITIONS 5. Zoning Bylaw No. 1675, 2004 is varied as follows:

5.1.    Section 8(7) – to enable the construction of an accessory building with a height increased

From:  6 meters   To: 7.5 meters, as shown on Schedule ‘2.’ 

5.2.  Section 8(8) – to enable the construction of an accessory building with a size increased:  

From: 54 square meters   To:  150 square meters, as shown on Schedule ‘3.’ 

If the holder of the DVP does not substantially start any construction with respect to which the permit was issued within two years after the date it is issued, the permit lapses.   

Authorized resolution __/17 passed by the RDCK Board on the ___ of ________, 2017. 

The Corporate Seal of THE REGIONAL DISTRICT OF CENTRAL KOOTENAY was hereunto affixed in the presence of: 

K. Hamling, Chair Anitra Winje, Corporate Officer 

Attachment A

Development Variance Permit File V1701J‐07289.275‐Rennie‐DVP000150Page 2 of 4 

  Schedule 1:  Context map 

Development Variance Permit File V1701J‐07289.275‐Rennie‐DVP000150Page 3 of 4 

Schedule 2: Elevation Plan 

Development Variance Permit File V1701J‐07289.275‐Rennie‐DVP000150Page 4 of 4 

Schedule 3:  Site Plan 

Regional District Central KootenayBoard Of Directors and Planners

Please allow me to introduce myself, my name is John Rennie.

From the age of 6 in the late 1970's to the age of 30 in 2002,1 lived in IqaluitNunavut (formerly known as Frobisher Bay Northwest Territories when I was

there) and Yellowknife Northwest Territories. As a young boy I would spend my

summer holidays in the Kootenay's which is where my mothers family was from.

Spending those summer days in the Kootenay's, I grew fond of the area and alwaysdreamed of living of living in the Kootenay's on an acreage, with lots of grass and a

small farm. You see in Yellowknife, where I spent most of my time, we had lots of

rocks and lakes but I only for a short time was I lucky enough to have grass!

In 2002,1 was lucky enough to receive employment in Castlegar and began to live

part of my dream. I moved about the Castlegar area always hoping for a perfect

house and driving down McPhee Road thinking that this was where the nicest

properties were.

In 2007 I met a beautiful young lady, Laura and we began to date. In 2009 Laura

and I married and began to build our house in Castlegar. In 2010 when we finished

building. Shortly after building, an opportunity to buy an older house and acreage

on McPhee Road came up, and we immediately jumped at the opportunity.

In 2011, Laura and I had a baby boy, Cameron. It didn't take us long to realize after

Cameron was 1.5 years old that Cameron was suited to a farm lifestyle, as he has a

natural way with animals and enjoys the outdoors. In 2013, Laura and I decided it

was time to sell our new home and move out to the old house on McPhee Road.

With some renovations and Laura 8 months pregnant, we moved into the old house.

Shortly after the move we had our second son Linden.

Laura and I always dreamed we would tear down the old house and build a dream

house, however after moving into the old house we quickly realized that this house

was perfect for us and was no longer a house but a home.

Skip ahead to 2016 and Laura and I love living in our home. We have added a large

covered deck to enjoy are beautiful private backyard, which includes a small

orchard of apples, cherries, plumbs and nuts as well as an area we sectioned off for

the chickens both Laura and I dreamed of, and two pygmy goats. Cameron and

Linden love the space they have in the backyard to play and explore, and live a small

version of farm life, the one that I always wished for as a boy.

I have opened up and told you a brief snippet of our family's life, which for us is a

perfect life. But I told this brief snippet for a reason, so you could see what kind of

Attachment B

people we are and what dreams we've had. But we have one more dream to add to

our property and home, a large garage.

I have spent the last few years looking at various garages, some larger and some

smaller, and most not as tall. After talking with the various owners and listening to

what they were happy about with their garage and also some regrets, I came to the

desired size which I feel will accommodate our family's needs. The garage is

designed to be 40 by 60 feet with 16 feet tall walls. Our boat takes up a large part ofthe length of the garage when measured from tip of trailer tongue to tip ofpropeller,

then add enough space around the boat to be within reason and it suddenly its used

up most of the space, (lengthwise is used up due to the size of the boat) The boat is

also tail, requiring at least a 12 foot high door. After talking with a number of garage

owners, their biggest regret was they wished they would have added the 2 more feet

to the wall height to make a 14 foot high garage door. They found that as time went

on, they bought an RV and did not plan their garage accordingly with most walls

being just 2 feet to short! Using up the rest of the space we still have a small farm

tractor, a trailer, quad and vehicles, plus a small area to have workbenches and

tools.

As you can see from the first attached drawing, the beautiful backyard that slopes

down from the front yard and the rises again at the back. The natural terrain of the

backyard, it is so beautiful and peaceful to look over from the deck. The yard to the

south of the house is where the garage would go, filling the unused mostly level

space. Realizing the dimensions of the garage, I continued with the already mature

landscaping of trees and planted 14 Blue Spruce Trees that are already 5 feet tail, in

order help screen the garage from the road and neighboring properties.

Knowing that a garage this size has the possibility to take away from our beautiful

property, Laura and I spent a great deal of time ensuring that the details of the

garage adds to our property and does not take away. Laura and I plan on using a

Hardie Plank Lap Siding and Asphalt Shingles on the roof of the garage to match ourhome in both colour and appearance so the garage appears as residential as

possible. Even the bump out details in the gable peaks will be added to match our

home. I cannot stress enough that this garage is only for private use and not for

commercial use. Knowing most garages of this size have the more economical metal

siding and roofs and therefore a commercial look, we were prepared to spend the

extra money on the siding and roofing to not only appease ourselves but also our

neighbours. Speaking of neighbours, I have checked with all of the neighbours

within about 200 meters up and down McPhee Road to ensure that they are

comfortable with our garage, and of course they were.

After analyzing the amount of space we were going to need it became quickly

apparent to us that to keep the sun, rain and snow from weathering our boat,

vehicles and implements, we were going to require a garage that was on the larger

size. Due to the cost of a garage, Laura and I explored other options, mainly high

quality portable shelters, but soon realized the cost of the shelters was about 10 to

15 % of an actual garage and had a limited life span with no added no value to the property. In other words a poor investment that really did not suit our desires. But really the big thing was, a shelter could never be the dream garage I have always wanted. From young boy to a young man I had a small shed which I insulated and heated with portable heaters so that I could work on and polish my snowmobiles. I spent hours in there working away and enjoying every part of my hobby. I no longer snowmobile but I do love tinkering away on the machines I do have I know that as my two sons, Cameron and Linden become older they too might want to tinker on machines just as I did when I was a boy. I can already see that both boys have an interest in tinkering as they love to help Dad fix things. As the boys grow older I hope that they would rather spend time in the garage with their friends working on their toys than going to bush parties or being bored youths not knowing what to do.

You see this garage is so much more than just a garage, its the last piece to our family's dream which already has a beautiful back yard, the small farm Laura and I always wanted, and hopefully with your assistance the dream garage, which has been designed to have an appearance that has been accepted in our neighborhood. drew a number of sketches depicting our property, the site plan and 4 garage profiles so hopefully you can see the vision we have. We hope you can agree that this garage is appropriate and allow our family to put the final piece in place.

From John, Laura, Cameron, Linden and Taber ( our dog), thank you for reading and considering our request.