City of Surrey ADDITIONAL PLANNING COMMENTS File:

Transcription

1 City of Surrey ADDITIONAL PLANNING COMMENTS File: Planning Report Date: December 19, 2016 PROPOSAL: Restrictive Covenant amendment Development Variance Permit to reduce the total area of tree protection on the property to reflect the removal of two protected trees, and to reduce the minimum front yard setback to allow for the construction of a single family dwelling. LOCATION: OWNER: ZONING: OCP DESIGNATION: NCP DESIGNATION: Avenue Dalwinder S Grewal Sukhpreet K Punia RF Urban Proposed Single Family (6 u.p.a.)

2 Staff Report to Council File: Additional Planning Comments Page 2 RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY Recommend that Council approve the applicant s proposal to amend the restrictive covenant by reducing the total area of tree protection to reflect the removal of Tree #6 and #7 on Lot 1. Approval for Development Variance Permit to proceed to Public Notification. DEVIATION FROM PLANS, POLICIES OR REGULATIONS The applicant is seeking to reduce the minimum front yard setback of the RF Zone from 7.5 metres (25 ft.) to 4.5 metres (15 ft.). RATIONALE OF RECOMMENDATION The applicant proposes to amend the restrictive covenant for Tree Protection in order to eliminate the tree protection areas for two trees that were illegally removed in the Fall of A Restrictive Covenant Amendment application was submitted on June 3, Staff forwarded a Planning Report to Council on October 24, 2016 which recommended the application be referred back to the applicant for further revisions to the proposed house footprint. At this meeting, Council referred the application back to staff pending further review of the house footprint and driveway access to the garage (Resolution No. RES.R ). The applicant s house designer demonstrated to staff that the previous house plans and the building design analysis completed in 2011 did not allow for adequate access to the garage off of 131A Street. The applicant s house designer presented several options to staff that addressed the problem with driveway access to the garage. The house footprint included as Appendix II represents staff s preferred option. The applicant has since paid a fine in the amount of $4,536.00, as per the letter from the Manager of Trees and Landscaping dated May 24, The applicant is also requesting a variance to the front yard setback from 5.5 metres (18 ft.)to 4.5 metres (15 ft.). The variance is necessary due to the Special Building Setback requirement for lots fronting or flanking an arterial road or collector road, in accordance with Part 7 Special Building Setbacks of the Zoning By-law. 60 Avenue is a collector road and requires an additional 1 metres (3 ft.) of road right-of-way for an ultimate road allowance of 24 metres (79 ft.). Staff supports the requested variance to proceed to Public Notification.

3 Staff Report to Council File: Additional Planning Comments Page 3 RECOMMENDATION The Planning & Development Department recommends that: 1. Council approve the applicant s proposal to amend the restrictive covenant by reducing the total area of tree protection to reflect the removal of Tree #6 and #7 on Lot 1 located at Avenue, subject to the following conditions: (a) (b) Planting 2 replacement trees for each tree that was removed, as per the letter from the Manager of Trees and Landscaping dated May 24, 2016 (Appendix III); and Amend the restrictive covenant to reduce the total area of tree protection to reflect the removal of Tree #6 and #7. 2. Council approve Development Variance Permit No (Appendix V) varying the following, to proceed to Public Notification: (a) to reduce the minimum front yard setback of the RF Zone from 7.5 metres (25 ft.) to 4.5 metres (15 ft.). REFERRALS Engineering: The Engineering Department has no objection to the project. SITE CHARACTERISTICS Existing Land Use: Vacant single family lot Adjacent Area: Direction Existing Use OCP/NCP Designation North: Single family dwelling Urban/ Proposed Single Family (6 u.p.a.) East (Across 131A Street): Single family dwelling Urban/ Proposed Single Family (6 u.p.a.) South (Across 60 Avenue): Single family dwellings Urban/ Small Lot with Lane (13 u.p.a.) West: Single family dwelling Urban/ Existing Single Family Existing Zone RF RF RA RF DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS Background The applicant proposes to amend the restrictive covenant for Tree Protection in order to eliminate the tree protection areas for two trees that were illegally removed in the Fall of 2015.

4 Staff Report to Council File: Additional Planning Comments Page 4 The subject property was created in 2011 as part of a six lot subdivision and rezoning under Development Application No (Lot 1). A restrictive covenant for tree protection was registered on the subject property at that time to protect a stand of 8 Douglas Fir trees. As part of the previous subdivision, a variance was also granted to relax the front, rear, and side yard flanking setbacks for the subject property in order to accommodate the tree protection areas and construction of a single family dwelling on the property. In the Fall of 2015, the current owner of the property removed the two trees illegally. The City was notified after a complaint was received. The trees that were removed were large Douglas Firs measuring approximately 80 centimetres (2.6 ft.) and 114 (3.7 ft.) centimetres DBH at the time of removal. A Restrictive Covenant Amendment application was submitted on June 3, Staff forwarded a Planning Report to Council on October 24, 2016 which recommended the application be referred back to the applicant for further revisions to the proposed house footprint. At this meeting, Council referred the application back to staff pending further review of the house footprint and driveway access to the garage (Resolution No. RES.R ). At the October 24, 2016 Regular Council Land Use meeting, the applicant s representative stated that the previous house plans and the building design analysis completed in 2011 did not allow for adequate access to the garage off of 131A Street. The October 24, 2016 Planning Report is attached as Appendix IV. Council directed staff to work with the applicant and explore alternative driveway access that works within the parameters of the restrictive covenant, while also allowing for a house of a size that was anticipated at the time of subdivision (approximately 330 square metres [3,350 sq. ft.]). Revised Proposal The applicant s house designer demonstrated that the previous house design did not allow sufficient area to permit side access to the garage off of 131A Street. The side access garage also made it difficult to park one or more vehicles in the driveway. The building design analysis completed by Tynan Consulting Ltd. did not anticipate the challenges with accessing the garage from the side, or the challenge of providing for additional on-site vehicle parking. The solution to the driveway access and parking challenges are solved by pushing the garage back from 131A Street, to allow straight-in access from the street, while also providing sufficient space in the driveway to park up to two additional vehicles without encroaching onto City property. However, pushing the garage back makes it difficult to achieve a functional floor plan while also achieving a house of a size that was anticipated at the time of subdivision.

5 Staff Report to Council File: Additional Planning Comments Page 5 The applicant s house designer presented two options to staff that addressed the problem with driveway access to the garage. Option 1 proposed a house that complied with the covenant area, but required additional setback variances to the rear yard (north) setback to achieve a house of a sufficient floor area. Option 2 proposed a house that encroaches into the covenant area, but does not require any additional setback variances. Staff preferred Option 2, as it addresses the garage access problem and does not require additional setback variances that would impact adjacent property owners (Appendix II). Prior to amendments to the RF Zone in July 2013, the maximum floor area permitted under the RF Zone was 330 square metres (3,550 sq. ft.). Based on the size of the subject lot, the maximum floor area permitted under the RF Zone today is 375 square metres (4,031 sq. ft.). The revised floor plan proposes a total floor area of 342 square metres (3,686 sq. ft.). Therefore, the proposed house is consistent with the size of home anticipated by the original subdivision, but less than the maximum currently permitted under the RF Zone. The applicant is seeking to amend the restrictive covenant to allow for a portion of the house and a covered deck to encroach into the covenanted area of the two removed trees. RESTRICTIVE COVENANT AMENDMENT EVALUATION (a) Amend Restrictive Covenant (Tree Protection) in order to eliminate the tree protection areas for Trees #6 and #7 on Lot 1, which have already been removed, to allow for the construction of a single family dwelling on the subject property. Applicant's Reasons: The applicant asserts that the Trees #6 and #7 were damaged in a wind storm in the Fall of 2015 around the time they took possession of the property. The owners subsequently had the trees removed from the site. The proposal is to accommodate the construction of a single family dwelling on the subject property. The proposed house encroaches into the tree protection areas of the two trees that were removed, and therefore the restrictive covenant impedes the applicant s ability to construct a house of a size that was anticipated at the time of subdivision. The applicant demonstrated that the previous house plans and the building design analysis completed in 2011 did not anticipate the challenges with accessing the garage from the side, or the challenge of providing for additional on-site vehicle parking. The applicant has provided revised house plans showing a portion of the house and a covered deck encroaching into the covenanted area of the two removed trees. The applicant has since paid a fine in the amount of $4,536.00, as per the letter from the Manager of Trees and Landscaping dated May 24, 2016.

6 Staff Report to Council File: Additional Planning Comments Page 6 Staff Comments: The applicant demonstrated that the previous house design did not allow sufficient area to permit side access to the garage off of 131A Street. The side access garage also presented challenges to parking one or more vehicles in the driveway. The building design analysis completed by Tynan Consulting Ltd. in 2011 did not anticipate the challenges with accessing the garage from the side, or the difficulty of providing for additional on-site vehicle parking. The applicant presented two options to staff that addressed the problem with driveway access to the garage. Option 1 proposed a house that complied with the covenant area, but required additional setback variances to the rear yard (north) setback to achieve a house of a sufficient floor area. Option 2 proposed a house that encroaches into the covenant area, but does not require any additional setback variances. Staff preferred Option 2, as it addresses the garage access problem and does not require additional setback variances that would impact adjacent property owners. The proposed house is consistent with the size of home anticipated by the original subdivision, but less than the maximum currently permitted under the RF Zone. The City will require the planting of 2 replacement trees for each tree that was removed, as per the letter from the Manager of Trees and Landscaping dated May 24, BY-LAW VARIANCE AND JUSTIFICATION (a) Requested Variance: To reduce the minimum front yard setback of the RF Zone from 7.5 metres (25 ft.) to 4.5 metres (15 ft.). (Appendix V). Applicant's Reasons: The requested front yard setback variance is to permit the construction of new house. The front yard setback on this property was previously reduced at the time of subdivision under Development Application No in order to support tree preservation. The current front yard setback 5.5 metres (18 ft.). The proposed setback variance will maintain the existing setback distance from the front property line of 5.5 metres (18 ft.), but will allow for an additional 1 metre of road dedication that may be required in the future as per Part 7 of the Zoning Bylaw for ultimate road allowance on 60 Avenue. Staff Comments: The variance is required due to a Special Building Setback at the front of the property of 1 metre that is required as per Part 7 of the Zoning Bylaw for ultimate road allowance on 60 Avenue.

7 Staff Report to Council File: Additional Planning Comments Page 7 The subject site is located on 60 Avenue, which is a designated Collector Road in the Surrey Road Classification Map (R-91), attached as Schedule D to Surrey Subdivision and Development By-law No The Surrey Major Road Allowance Map, attached as Schedule K to the Subdivision and Development By-law, identifies a 24-metre (79 ft.) wide road allowance for 60 Avenue. Staff support the requested variances to proceed to Public Notification. INFORMATION ATTACHED TO THIS REPORT The following information is attached to this Report: Appendix I. Lot Owners and Action Summary Appendix II. Proposed Site Plan Appendix III Letter Re: By-law No Remediation Requirements Appendix IV October 24, 2016 Planning Report Appendix V Development Variance Permit No Original signed by Ron Hintsche RJG/da Jean Lamontagne General Manager Planning and Development

8 APPENDIX I Information for City Clerk Legal Description and Owners of all lots that form part of the application: 1. (a) Agent: Name: Sukhpreet K Punia Address: Avenue Surrey, BC V3X 3J1 2. Properties involved in the Application (a) Civic Address: Avenue (b) Civic Address: Avenue Owner: Sukhpreet K Punia Dalwinder S Grewal PID: Lot 1 Section 8 Township 2 New Westminster District Plan BCP Summary of Actions for City Clerk's Office (a) Proceed with Public Notification for Development Variance Permit No and bring the Development Variance Permit forward for issuance and execution by the Mayor and City Clerk.

9 APPENDIX II

10 APPENDIX III May 24, 2016 Surrey File: Sukhpreet K. Punia Ave SURREY BC V3X 3I1 Dear Sir/Madam: Re: Notice of By-law No Remediation Requirements at Ave It was confirmed through a site inspection that 2 trees with a diameter of 30cm (measured at 1.4 meters above ground) or more has been removed at your property Ave. This tree removal is in contravention of Part 3 of the City of Surrey's Tree Preservation By-law, No , which requires that you obtain a permit prior to the removal of any protected trees. Based on Parts 5, 8 and 9 of By-law No , you are required to pay the original permit costs, a penalty fee, and replace the 2 trees at a 2:1 ratio (2 trees replaced for every one removed). You are also requested to provide a refundable security deposit to the City for the tree replacement. Consequently, you must provide to the City, the total amount shown as follows: (a) Tree removal fee $76.00 base fee plus $30/tree = $76 + (2 trees x $30) $ (b) Tree infraction penalty $1,000/tree (2 trees x $1,000) $ 2, (c) Tree replacement bond at $600/replacement tree (4 trees x $600) $ _2,400.00_ TOTAL $ 4, The replacement trees are to be a minimum of 3m tall if coniferous, or 8cm calliper if deciduous. When purchasing the trees, please let the nursery staff/landscaper know that the trees must conform to the BCSLA/BCLNA Landscape Standards with regards to tree structure, health and planting. Instructions on how to correctly plant the trees are available upon request. The purpose of this letter is to notify you that unless the necessary arrangements for the above remedial measures are concluded by: June 24, 2016, a note regarding this letter will be placed on the City s tax roll for this property and the costs shall be added to the form part of the taxes payable on the lot as taxes in arrears. The note will be removed when the City confirms the remedial measures are concluded. Please call the Trees and Landscape Section at for further information. Yours truly, Steve Whitton Manager, Trees and Landscapes Phone: spwhitton@surrey.ca

11 APPENDIX IV City of Surrey PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT REPORT File: Planning Report Date: October 24, 2016 PROPOSAL: Restrictive Covenant amendment to reduce the total area of tree protection on the property to reflect the removal of two protected trees LOCATION: OWNER: ZONING: OCP DESIGNATION: NCP DESIGNATION: Avenue Dalwinder S Grewal Sukhpreet K Punia RF Urban Proposed Single Family (6 u.p.a.)

12 Staff Report to Council File: Planning & Development Report Page 2 RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY The Planning and Development Department recommends that this application be referred back to the applicant for further revisions to the proposed building footprint. DEVIATION FROM PLANS, POLICIES OR REGULATIONS None. RATIONALE OF RECOMMENDATION Two trees on the subject property were removed illegally without a tree cutting permit and in breach of the restrictive covenant for tree protection. Prior to their removal the two trees were part of a healthy stand of 8 Douglas Fir trees that were retained when this lot was created as part of Development Application No Requests by the previous owner to remove the two trees were denied by staff and the owner was informed that they would need to apply for a Major Restrictive Covenant Amendment and provide a strong rationale to support the proposed amendment and removal of the trees. At the time of the original subdivision, a building envelope analysis was completed and determined that a house of the maximum size permitted under the RF Zone at that time could be constructed, provided that the front, rear, and side yard flanking street setback were relaxed. These setback relaxations were supported by staff and approved by Council. Lots 2, 5, and 6 of the same subdivision are also encumbered by restrictive covenants for tree protection and single family dwellings of reasonable sizes that fit the context of the neighbourhood have been constructed on these properties while also respecting the tree protection areas. In light of the above circumstances, staff do not support the proposed restrictive covenant amendment, and are of the view that the proposed building footprint should be revised such that no portion of the building encroaches into the covenant area.

13 Staff Report to Council File: Planning & Development Report Page 3 RECOMMENDATION The Planning & Development Department recommends that this application be referred back to the applicant for further revisions to the proposed building footprint. However, if Council feels there is merit in supporting the proposed restrictive covenant amendment, the appropriate motion is as follows: 1. Council approve the applicant s proposal to amend the restrictive covenant by reducing the total area of tree protection to reflect the removal of Tree #6 and #7 on Lot 1 located at Avenue, subject to the following conditions: (a) (b) Payment of a fine in the amount of $4,536.00, and planting 2 replacement trees for each tree that was removed, as per the letter from the Manager of Trees and Landscaping dated May 24, 2016 (Appendix VII); and Amend the restrictive covenant to reduce the total area of tree protection to reflect the removal of Tree #6 and #7. REFERRALS Engineering: The Engineering Department has no objection to the project. SITE CHARACTERISTICS Existing Land Use: Vacant single family lot Adjacent Area: Direction Existing Use OCP/NCP Designation North: Single family dwelling Urban/ Proposed Single Family (6 u.p.a.) East (Across 131A Street): Single family dwelling Urban/ Proposed Single Family (6 u.p.a.) South (Across 60 Avenue): Single family dwellings Urban/ Small Lot with Lane (13 u.p.a.) West: Single family dwelling Urban/ Existing Single Family Existing Zone RF RF RA RF DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS Site Description The subject property is 670 square metres (7,216 sq.ft.) in area and zoned "Single Family Residential Zone" (RF). The property is designated "Urban" in the Official Community Plan and designated "Proposed Single Family (6 u.p.a.)" in the West Newton/Highway 10 NCP. The lot is currently vacant.

14 Staff Report to Council File: Planning & Development Report Page 4 Prior to their removal, Trees #6 and #7 were located on the western portion of the lot, in the rear yard of any future dwelling. The two trees were Douglas Firs and formed part of a stand of 8 Douglas Fir trees that were retained when this lot was created as part of Development Application No The approved July 2009 arborist report described both trees as being in good condition and worthy of retention. In 2009, Tree #6 measured 36 centimetres (1.2 ft.) DBH (diameter at breast height) and 20 metres (66 ft.) in height. Tree #7 measured 76 centimetres (2.5 ft.) DBH and 28 metres (92 ft.) in height. At the time of their removal these trees were 80 (2.6 ft.) and 114 (3.7 ft.) centimetres DBH. Proposal The applicant proposes to amend the restrictive covenant for Tree Protection that is registered on title in order to eliminate the tree protection areas for two trees that were illegally removed in the Fall of The proposal is to accommodate the construction of a single family dwelling on the subject property. The proposed house encroaches into the tree protection areas of the two trees that were removed (Appendix II). Background The subject property was created in 2011 as part of a six lot subdivision and rezoning under Development Application No (Lot 1). The restrictive covenant for tree protection was registered on the subject property in 2011 as part of the subdivision. Under the original subdivision, a stand of 8 Douglas Fir trees were retained on the subject property. Mike Tynan conducted a building envelope analysis at the time of subdivision and determined that setback variances were required to allow for these 8 trees to be retained and for a house of the maximum size permitted under the RF Zone (Appendix VI). At that time, the maximum floor area permitted under the RF Zone was 330 square metres (3,550 sq.ft.). A DVP was granted to relax the front, rear, and side yard flanking setbacks for the subject property in order to accommodate the construction of a single family dwelling on the property. The front yard setback was reduced from 7.5 metres (25 ft.) to 5.5 metres (18 ft.); the rear yard setback was reduced from 7.5 metres (25 ft.) to 6.o metres (20 ft.); and the side yard flanking street setback was reduced from 3.6 metres (12 ft.) to 3.0 metres (10 ft.). The lot has remained vacant since the subdivision was finalized in In 2014, staff received two requests from the previous owner of the property to remove Trees #6 and #7. These requests were denied and the owner was advised that an application for Major Restrictive Covenant Amendment would have to be made and that a strong rationale would need to be provided to support the proposed amendment and removal of the trees.

15 Staff Report to Council File: Planning & Development Report Page 5 Sometime in the Fall of 2015, the current owner of the property removed the two trees illegally. The City was notified after a complaint was received. The trees that were removed were large Douglas Firs measuring approximately 80 centimetres (2.6 ft.) and 114 (3.7 ft.) centimetres DBH at the time of removal. The new owner informed staff that the trees blew down in a windstorm before they took possession in October. No evidence of the damage was ever documented or provided to staff and the owner did not apply for a tree cutting permit. The owners have since provided an arborist report (dated December 2015) to support the amendment of the RC. However, this report does not discuss the trees that were removed. In February 2015, City staff conducted a site inspection and found no evidence of tree failure and documented efforts made to hide the stumps of the removed trees with soil. On May 24, 2016, the City issued a penalty for the unauthorized removal of the trees in the amount of $4,536. This penalty has not yet been paid by the owner. The owner has provided 5 letters representing 4 neighbouring property owners that corroborate the owner s version of events. This Development Application was previously scheduled for the September 12, 2016 Regular Council Land Use meeting, however, the application was removed from the agenda at the request of the applicant. The applicant has since provided updated house plans showing a building envelope that respects the existing restrictive covenant and setbacks, with the exception of a proposed covered deck. Therefore, the applicant is still seeking to amend the restrictive covenant to allow for a covered deck to encroach into the covenanted area of the two removed trees. The updated house plans propose a total floor area of 375 square metres (4,031 sq. ft.) including covered deck, which is the maximum permitted under the current RF Zone based on the size of the subject property. Prior to amendments to the RF Zone in July 2013, the maximum floor area permitted under the RF Zone was 330 square metres (3,550 sq. ft.). RESTRICTIVE COVENANT AMENDMENT EVALUATION (a) Amend Restrictive Covenant (Tree Protection) in order to eliminate the tree protection areas for Trees #6 and #7 on Lot 1, which have already been removed, to allow for the construction of a single family dwelling on the subject property. Applicant's Reasons: The applicant asserts that the Trees #6 and #7 were damaged in a wind storm in the Fall of 2015 around the time they took possession of the property. The owners subsequently had the trees removed from the site. The proposal is to accommodate the construction of a single family dwelling on the subject property. The proposed house encroaches into the tree protection areas of the two trees that were removed, and therefore the restrictive covenant impedes the applicant s ability to construct a dwelling of their choosing.

16 Staff Report to Council File: Planning & Development Report Page 6 The applicant has provided revised house plans showing a building envelope that respects the existing restrictive covenant and setbacks, except for a proposed covered deck. The applicant is seeking to amend the restrictive covenant to allow for a covered deck to encroach into the covenanted area of the two removed trees. Staff Comments: Prior to their removal the two trees were part of a healthy stand of 8 Douglas Fir trees that were retained when this lot was created as part of Development Application No The July 2009 arborist report described both trees as being in good condition and worthy of retention. In 2009, Tree #6 measured 36 centimetres (1.2 ft.) DBH (diameter at breast height) and 20 metres (66 ft.) in height. Tree #7 measured 76 centimetres (2.5 ft.) DBH and 28 metres (92 ft.) in height (Appendix IV). At the time of their removal the stumps of these trees measured 80 centimetres (2.6 ft.) and 114 (3.7 ft.) centimetres respectively (Appendix V). Requests by the previous owner to remove the two trees were denied by staff and the owner was informed that they would need to apply for a Major Restrictive Covenant Amendment and provide a strong rationale to support the proposed amendment and removal of the trees. The two trees were removed illegally, without a tree cutting permit and in breach of the restrictive covenant for tree protection that is registered on title of the property. At the time of the original subdivision, a building envelope analysis was completed and determined that a house of the maximum size permitted under the RF Zone at that time could be constructed, provided that the front, rear, and side yard flanking street setbacks were relaxed. These setback relaxations were supported by staff and approved by Council. (Appendix VI). Lots 2, 5, and 6 of the same subdivision are also encumbered by restrictive covenants for tree protection and single family dwellings of reasonable sizes that fit the context of the neighbourhood have been constructed on these properties while also respecting the tree protection areas. Lot 6 in particular, located across 131A Street at Avenue, is smaller than the subject property and was able to accommodate a stand of 6 Douglas Fir and a single family dwelling without amending the restrictive covenant for tree protection. In cases where trees have been removed without proper authorization, the City s practice is to maintain the no-build covenant areas even though the trees are no longer in place, so as to not condone this behavior. Staff do not support the proposed restrictive covenant amendment.

17 Staff Report to Council File: Planning & Development Report Page 7 PRE-NOTIFICATION Pre-notification letters were mailed to the owners of 82 properties within 100 meters of the subject site. To date, staff have received 1 phone call and 3 s from neighbours. All 4 neighbours expressed their objection to the loss of additional trees at this location, particularly the high quality specimen Douglas Firs that were removed. INFORMATION ATTACHED TO THIS REPORT The following information is attached to this Report: Appendix I. Lot Owners and Action Summary Appendix II. Proposed Site Plan Appendix III. Tree Retention Plan ( ) Appendix IV Tree Inventory ( ) Appendix V Photos of Trees #6 and #7 Appendix VI Building Envelope Analysis ( ) Appendix VII Letter Re: By-law No Remediation Requirements original signed by Ron Hintsche RJG/ar Jean Lamontagne General Manager Planning and Development

18 APPENDIX I Information for City Clerk Legal Description and Owners of all lots that form part of the application: 1. (a) Agent: Name: Address: Sukhpreet K Punia 13 - Avenue 2. Properties involved in the Application (a) Civic Address: Avenue (b) Civic Address: Avenue Owner: Sukhpreet K Punia Dalwinder S Grewal PID: Lot 1 Section 8 Township 2 New Westminster District Plan BCP Summary of Actions for City Clerk's Office No action required.

19 3.00m 1.50m WALKWAY ZONING ANALYSIS: (RF) LOT SIZE: 671 sq.m. FLOOR AREA: PERMITTED: 560 sq.m. X sq.ft. 111 sq.m. X sq.ft. 375 sq.m. SUBTRACT: 39 sq.m. ( GARAGE) 1.50m "NO-BUILD" ZONE SUNKEN PATIO 6.00m DRIVEWAY ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA: COVERED OUTDOOR SPACE: PERMITTED (10% OF MAXIMUM FAR): SUBTRACT: 15 sq.m. (FRONT PORCH/VERANDA) ALLOWABLE OUTDOOR SPACE: 336 sq.m. 38 sq.m. 23 sq.m. TREE ROOT PROTECTION ZONE GARAGE AREA: 39 sq.m. LOT COVERAGE: PERMITTED (36%): 242 sq.m. 1.80m WALKWAY 3.00m 7.00m WALKWAY PROPOSED RESIDENCE APPROX. MAIN FLOOR: 140 sq.m. APPROX. UPPER FLOOR: 137 sq.m. TREE ROOT PROTECTION ZONE 5.50m COVERED DECK PORCH 1.50m "NO-BUILD" ZONE APPENDIX II

20 APPENDIX III Tree #7 1 6 Tree #6 60 Avenue

21 APPENDIX IV

22 Aerial Views of Before and After Removal of Trees APPENDIX V Before: Trees #6 and #7 After:

23 Photos of Stumps of Trees #6 and #7

24 1 APPENDIX VI

25 APPENDIX VII May 24, 2016 Surrey File: Sukhpreet K. Punia Ave SURREY BC V3X 3I1 Dear Sir/Madam: Re: Notice of By-law No Remediation Requirements at Ave It was confirmed through a site inspection that 2 trees with a diameter of 30cm (measured at 1.4 meters above ground) or more has been removed at your property Ave. This tree removal is in contravention of Part 3 of the City of Surrey's Tree Preservation By-law, No , which requires that you obtain a permit prior to the removal of any protected trees. Based on Parts 5, 8 and 9 of By-law No , you are required to pay the original permit costs, a penalty fee, and replace the 2 trees at a 2:1 ratio (2 trees replaced for every one removed). You are also requested to provide a refundable security deposit to the City for the tree replacement. Consequently, you must provide to the City, the total amount shown as follows: (a) Tree removal fee $76.00 base fee plus $30/tree = $76 + (2 trees x $30) $ (b) Tree infraction penalty $1,000/tree (2 trees x $1,000) $ 2, (c) Tree replacement bond at $600/replacement tree (4 trees x $600) $ _2,400.00_ TOTAL $ 4, The replacement trees are to be a minimum of 3m tall if coniferous, or 8cm calliper if deciduous. When purchasing the trees, please let the nursery staff/landscaper know that the trees must conform to the BCSLA/BCLNA Landscape Standards with regards to tree structure, health and planting. Instructions on how to correctly plant the trees are available upon request. The purpose of this letter is to notify you that unless the necessary arrangements for the above remedial measures are concluded by: June 24, 2016, a note regarding this letter will be placed on the City s tax roll for this property and the costs shall be added to the form part of the taxes payable on the lot as taxes in arrears. The note will be removed when the City confirms the remedial measures are concluded. Please call the Trees and Landscape Section at for further information. Yours truly, Steve Whitton Manager, Trees and Landscapes Phone: spwhitton@surrey.ca

26 CITY OF SURREY APPENDIX V (the "City") DEVELOPMENT VARIANCE PERMIT NO.: Issued To: SUKHPREET K PUNIA DALWINDER S GREWAL (the "Owner") Address of Owner: Avenue Surrey, BC V3X 3J1 1. This development variance permit is issued subject to compliance by the Owner with all statutes, by-laws, orders, regulations or agreements, except as specifically varied by this development variance permit. 2. This development variance permit applies to that real property including land with or without improvements located within the City of Surrey, with the legal description and civic address as follows: Parcel Identifier: Lot 1 Section 8 Township 2 New Westminster District Plan BCP Avenue (the "Land") 3. Surrey Zoning By-law, 1993, No , as amended is varied as follows: (a) In Section F. Yards and Setbacks of Part 16 Single Family Residential Zone, the minimum front yard setback is reduced from 7.5 metres (25 ft.) to 4.5 metres (15 ft.). 4. This development variance permit applies to only that portion of the buildings and structures on the Land shown on Schedule A which is attached hereto and forms part of this development variance permit. This development variance permit does not apply to additions to, or replacement of, any of the existing buildings shown on attached Schedule A. 5. The Land shall be developed strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions and provisions of this development variance permit.

27 This development variance permit shall lapse if the Owner does not substantially complete the building permit requirements with respect to the building for which this development variance permit is issued, within two (2) years after the date this development variance permit is issued. 7. The terms of this development variance permit or any amendment to it, are binding on all persons who acquire an interest in the Land. 8. This development variance permit is not a building permit. AUTHORIZING RESOLUTION PASSED BY THE COUNCIL, THE DAY OF, 20. ISSUED THIS DAY OF, 20. Mayor Linda Hepner City Clerk Jane Sullivan

28 SCHEDULE A 4.5 metre front yard setback Ultimate property line after future road widening of 60 Avenue 60 Avenue