Pemberton council voted this week to send a development variance permit for a residential property back to staff for a second time, arguing that the proposal to allow an existing retaining wall above district guidelines didn’t do enough to address neighbours’ concerns.
Submitted by the owners of 7665 Cerulean Drive, the original application was considered at the March 16 council meeting and asked officials to allow an existing retaining wall on the property in excess of the allowable 1.2 metres in height, to a maximum of 4.32 m.
After sending the application back to staff, property owners Stephanie Nicoll-Russell and David Russell came back to council on Tuesday, April 13 with a revised proposal, this time committing to remove the top two tiers of the retaining wall and burying the entire bottom row. Those changes would require a maximum retaining wall height of 3.36 m., although the wall would appear to be 2.8 m. tall, with 0.56 m. buried underground. The applicants have also committed to landscaping work that would mitigate visual impacts to neighbours, as well as increasing the side setbacks and removing the existing formwork and rebar for the footings already onsite.
“With the decrease of our wall [height] of 35 per cent, with the support we already have in submitted letters by members of the Sunstone community, and after a lengthy delay of seven months, we are seeking your approval based on the proposed changes to the retaining wall,” implored Nicoll-Russell.
Of primary concern for neighbour Mark MacIver, who submitted a letter in opposition in addition to calling in to Tuesday’s meeting, is the potential for backfill to encroach on his property, as well as what he believes is a lack of clarity on the timeline to complete the work.
“We oppose this revision as the owner should be held accountable to a more detailed plan for the revision of the wall, complete with redesign details of the retaining wall as if this were a normal application, and not allowing for assumptions,” he said. “A list of committed dates should also be included for when the work will be completed, in particular, the items pertaining to encroachment on neighbouring properties.”
Another neighbour, Sandi Britt, also called in to the meeting to voice her support for the project, saying that the applicants’ revised wall “is now a reasonable height” and their landscape plan is “aesthetically pleasing.”
Council considered the variance a month after nixing a planned retaining wall review due to the potential for escalating costs and delays for in-stream projects. Ultimately, that decision maintained the status quo of retaining walls taller than 1.2 m. requiring a variance permit. At the time, Pemberton Mayor Mike Richman acknowledged the decision would likely funnel more landowners into the variance process.
“The variance permit process is for this, it’s for special circumstances, and I feel the steepness of the lot does spell out special circumstances,” Richman said in Tuesday’s meeting. “I feel like the applicants have made a very strong effort to hear the comments from council in our past meeting.”
But others at the council table felt like the revised proposal represented too much of a change to the village’s guidelines and also didn’t effectively address neighbours’ concerns.
“I’m not opposed to the variance process and looking at some minor variances, but this still seems really major to me,” said Councillor Amica Antonelli. “I think that we need to work harder to address the concerns of the neighbour who wants to comply with the bylaw.”
Coun. Ted Craddock also warned of the precedent that could be set by approving a variance permit for a structure that had already been built in contravention of local bylaws.
“We shouldn’t be in this position,” he said. “We have a bylaw that lays out very clearly what is allowed and what is not allowed. We have the hillside policy guidelines that add to that, so there shouldn’t be any misconceptions about what can be done on the site.”
In the end, council voted once more to send the application back to staff in order to further address neighbours’ concerns.
