board of variance agenda - april 2, 2014 - metro vancouver...march 26, 2014 greater vancouver...

March 26, 2014

GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT (GVRD)

ELECTORAL AREA A

BOARD OF VARIANCE MEETING Wednesday, April 2, 2014

1:30 P.M. 2nd Floor Boardroom, 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, British Columbia

Membership: Brian Collins, Jenny Sandy and Michael Linton

A G E N D A1

ELECTION 1. Election of Board of Variance Chair

Designated Speaker: Paulette Vetleson, Corporate Secretary 2. Appointment of Board of Variance Acting Chair

Designated Speaker: Board Chair

A. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA 1. April 2, 2014 Meeting Agenda

That the Board of Variance adopt the agenda for its meeting scheduled for April 2, 2014 as circulated.

B. APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE

1. Peter Nilsson and Elisa Nilsson Block C District Lot 7059 New Westminster Land District (PID 017-853-982)

(29 East Croker Island, Indian Arm)

a. Electoral Area A Board of Variance Application No. 01-14. b. Board of Variance Application - 29 East Croker, Indian Arm - Report

Designated Speaker: Tom Pearce, Electoral Area A Planner

c. Written Submissions

d. Oral Submissions e. Board of Variance Order

1 Note: Recommendation is shown under each item, where applicable.

MSUNNER

Text Box

Board of Variance - 2014 Apr 2 - 1

GVRD Board Agenda April 2, 2014

Agenda of 2

C. ADJOURNMENT/TERMINATION That the Board of Variance adjourn/conclude its meeting of April, 2, 2014.


Electoral Area A

Electoral Area Administration Tel. 604 432-6383 Fax 604 432-4970

Board of Variance Application

Applicant Information

Name: � Nlt£tZ(;:Ir'J No·rvnzt '\ltrrJ . Mailing Address: ?� L- E3A:?·r

Phone: b?4' � Bb ' "5lQ 2-C>

Registered Owner Information

Email Address (print): PNI c.?;?OrJ �2--€!. � t-(..,I\'U./, (lOt-( •

Full Legal Name: _--4-�-= -'--"""""""'-----L.N----,-LU=$7;ON:::.....o....:=",--"--_�-L\'_-->�""" -=".a. -4---INJ-.-.="",-l t:.:...$ ..... G"""-""Oo<..:.l--....I-'=-____ _

Full Legal Name: _______________________________ _

Mailing Address(es): �l- � ltp11t\ 7�

f\.b\l{lt\: '\l.I'\N &J\ J\l� B, L .

Phone: 604- · 4 B 6 ' Db ZO Email Address (print):: 'PNlL� 53z..��rt1\VL .('011

Property and Variance Information

Zoning: ___ +={2;=-7�.,=---__:...� ______________________ _

Legal Description: !3coC,?- C. DI.L< =t-o'54 �t2Ql)P WE;T.

2a �-c �� ProjecUCivic Address: -----''''''-�-''---''�;....t+-l."..L.;!....l-l__-...,.��-'I;��"'"'__+-=::=---------------

Project Description (Please detail the proposed construction project}: _______________ _

�� !� rsM1 �. Variance Requested (Please detail the variance(s) to the Zoning Bylaw that you are requesting and the applicable section of the bylaw to be varied).

Variance Requested: Zoning Bylaw Section:

Example: front yard setback from required 7.5 metres

to 6.2 metres

SUSTAINABLE REGION INITIATIVE. ..

Section 304.3

2-\2

TURNING IDEAS INTO ACTION

Page 10'2 Board of Variance - 2014 Apr 2 - 3

MSUNNER

Text Box

B.1.a.

MSUNNER

Rectangle

MSUNNER

Rectangle

MSUNNER

Rectangle

MSUNNER

Rectangle

MSUNNER

Rectangle

MSUNNER

Rectangle

Metro Vancouver Board of Variance Application

l',Iature of Undue Hardship (Please detail the undue hardship that is the reason for your application, if there is not enough space below please attach a separate sheet to the application and again, please be specific):

�IGNED AND SEALED LEGAL SURVEY ENCLOSED

A legal survey from a certified British Columbia Land Surveyor is required to confirm proposed dimensions and distances. The legal survey needs

to include all existing and proposed improvements on the subject property and show distances from outer corners, decks and external walls to

adjacent property lines, easements and watercourses.

o BUILDING ELEVATIONS ENCLOSED (if applicable - only for height variances)

J21$300 APPLICATION FEE ENCLOSED (cheque should be made out to the "GVRD")

Agent Designation (if applicable)

Please note, if you are not the Registered Owner of the property that requires Board of Variance approval, a letter signed by the owner is required

prior to the Board of Variance meeting that allows you to act as a representative on his/her behalf. Neither Board members nor Metro Vancouver staff

are responsible for the completeness or accuracy of this application form. Please provide all the necessary information so that the Board members

and District staff will be able to properly consider your request.

I hereby designate _______________ t,0 act as my agent in matters related to this application.

Registered Owner's Name (Print): _________ Owner's Signature: _ ______ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Registered Owner's Name (Print): Owner's Signature: _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _____ _

Signatures

I certify that the attached submission is complete and accurate, and includes all of t v. items.

Registered Owner's Name (Print) : p� I'¥,� Owner's Signature:_-7'I!,.....,,�p.J.._-

__ .Date ft::t? vel.ILt· Registered Owner's Name (Print) : � tJuqzo/'....l Owner's Signature: Date 'feB ?£>{ \1. Applicant Name (Print): � N� Applicant's Signature: Date frez Z�'t -The Board of Variance operates pursuant to the regulations as established by Section 901 of the Local Government Act and GVRD "Electoral Area A Board of Variance Bylaw No. 857,1997" (a bylaw that provides for the establishment of a Board of Variance).

Office Use Only - Information below to be completed by Metro Vancouver Staff

Details of variances requested and the applicable section of the bylaw: _____________________ _

Decision of the Board of Variance: ____________________________ _____ _

Chairperson: ________ .Member: __________ Member: _______________ _

Updated January 2014

Page 2 0f2


.RECEIVED FEB 2 8 2014

Metro Vancouver - Legal

2014


Board of Variance Application - Appendix A - 29 East Croker, Indian Arm, BC

Introduction

29 East Croker was purchased in 2010. Improvements were made to the existing cabin after purchase.

In addition to the improvements to the cabin, exterior decks were reconstructed and added. See before

and after photographs below.

Original Cabin (Built circa 1978 with Addition circa 1992)

Renovated Cabin (2012)

2



Despite the dramatically different appearance from the waterfront, the footprint of the cabin did not

change, all the existing interior room sizes remained the same, the number of windows did not increase,

the area of window openings did not increase. Other than the obvious deck additions on the West

Elevation (front), one door was installed in an opening that was originally a window to maximize the use

of the living room and front deck and a number of skylights were added to increase natural light within

the cabin.

Project Description

Renovate existing cabin, reconstruct existing west and south decks and extend both west facing decks

(main level and second level) north the entire length of the cabin.

Variances Requested

1. Front Yard Setback from 15.0M to 5.11M (Section 312.3)

2. Natural Boundary of the Sea from15.0M to 5.11M (Section 212)

Nature of Undue Hardship

1. The setback of the existing cabin that was constructed circa 1978 is approximately 8.37 meters

(at its closest point to the natural boundary - see survey) and does not conform.

2. The setback of the addition to the original cabin that was constructed circa 1992 is approximately

7.55 meters (at its closest point to the natural boundary - see survey) and does not conform.

3. The setback of the existing deck that was presumably constructed circa 1992 was approximately


4. The setbacks of the adjacent properties immediately north and immediately south are similar or

less than the subject property as per the attached survey.

5. The setbacks of the remaining properties in Block C are similar. Without doing a survey of all of

the properties in Block C, it would appear that all of the decks and most of the cabins are within

the 15.0 meter setback zoning requirement.

3



6. The subject property was non-conforming prior to being purchased in 2010.

7. The setback of the original deck, specifically at the southwest corner, is approximately, if not

exactly the same as the reconstructed deck. Although it is not clearly visible in the original

photograph, the stairs up to the main deck start at the same location and elevation at the end of

the ramp from the dock as the new stairs. For a standard set of stairs to end at the same

elevation, in this case the front door threshold elevation, the total run or the horizontal distance

has to be similar if not the same. Therefor the deck projection off the front door must be similar

if not the same.

8. The decks that were reconstructed or added were not excessive in nature and are similar in

width as the other decks in Block C.

Conclusion

Improvements were made to the property in the late 70's and early 90's that are currently non

confirming. Additional improvements were made after the purchase of the property in 2010 that are

also non-confirming. Those improvements could never have been conforming considering the existing

conditions of the property.

There is nothing that can be done to make the decks or the cabin conform without tearing them down

and rebuilding. Considering the overall streetscape of Block C and the opinions of the neighbours, 29

East Croker would blend in better with the neighbouring cabins in its current setting than if it were to be

torn down and rebuilt further back on the property.

For the cabin to conform to the current Front Yard Setback and Natural Boundary of the Sea Zoning

Bylaws, a large clear-cut would be required to site the cabin further back on the property. If that were

to happen it would be the only cabin in Block C to be setback properly and would stand out like a sore

thumb. We don't want this and neither do our neighbours.

Peter Nilsson

Owner, 29 East Croker

4


BRITISH COLUMBIA LAND SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE OF LOCATION

PLAN SHOWING LOCATION OF CERTAIN STRUCTURES LOCATED ON

BLOCK C, DL 7059, Gp 1, NWD

P. I. D. No. 017-853-982

CIVIC ADDRESS INDICATED, 29 EAST OF CROKER ISLAND

NOTE, LOT DIMENSIONS ARE BASED ON PLAN OF DISTRICT LOT

CHARGES ON TITLE

No. DESCRIPTION

SF277588 COVENANT (PROVINCE)

BF277589 COVENANT (PROVINCE)

z «

o Z I-<

CLIENT, NILSSON

THIS PLAN SHOULD NOT BE USED TO ESTABLISH BOUNDARIES.

Gary Holme eCLS, CLS

qS02- 1215 Lansdowne D rive

Coquitlam, B, C.

V3E 2P2

ph/fax, 604 464 6981

E-mail: gary_holme@hotmail. com

Fi le, 460/12

Owg. File, 460BLC. OAT

L:.ECK 2. 55

-So

o W1

11 _

,- -1--:;---:--:--,

7. 4 8

, , I , , '" "

EX. HOUSE , i;; -,

0

I I I , 11. 24

'-.6. 93 , DECK ' __ I , / --------- I

,\0, L _ I /b< g ---: lf1 0

en

I HOUSE

1':ge

SCALE 1: 250 (METRIC)

BLOCK 'S'

110.73

96. 78

BLOCK 'C'

113. 26

BLOCK 'A'

THIS PLAN WAS PREPARED FOR THE EXCLUSIVE USE OF OUR CLIENT. THE SIGNATORY ACCEPTS NO

RESPONSIBILiTY OR LIABILITY FOR ANY DAMAGES

THAT MAY BE SUFFERED BY A THIRD PARTY AS A

RESULT OF REPRODUCTION, TRANSMISSION, OR

ALTERATION TO THIS DOCUMENT WITHOUT THE

CONSENT OF THE SIGNATORY.

94. 86

a) -.r 0 en

PLAN VALID ONLY WHEN

ORIGINALLY SIGNED AND SEALED

:>: " '"

,,' 0-: co CL I-

If) m

U w (/)

CERTIFIED CORRECT FOR BUILDING INSPECTION

PURPOSES ONLY. DATED THIS 12th DAY OF

JULY, 2012

Ai !z'f.42. ...

GARY N. HOLME, BCLS o 2012


To: Board of Variance From: Tom Pearce, Regional Planner, Planning, Policy and Environment Date: March 21, 2014 Meeting Date: April 2, 2014 Subject: Board of Variance Application – 29 East Croker, Indian Arm 1. LOCATION The subject site is located on the east side of Indian Arm within the Metro Vancouver Electoral Area, identified as: Block C, District Lot 7059, New Westminster Land District (PID 017-853-982), 29 East Croker Island, Helga Bay Indian Arm. 2. NATURE OF UNDUE HARDSHIP The nature of the variance application and associated hardship claim is in regards to the siting of a deck for a house. The hardship is further described by the Applicant in the Appendix of their application. 3. CONTEXT The subject property is located at Helga Bay Indian Arm as shown on the attached maps and photos. There are 3 lots immediately to the south and appropriately 7 lots to the north within 200 metres of the subject property. The subject lot measures approximately 30 metres by 109 metres with a total area of 0.33 hectares, and contains a two-storey house built 1978, updated in 1992 and significantly upgraded in 2010 with approximately 2,530 sq. ft of living space. The application further notes the house was substantially renovated in 2010 (excluding the deck), and is approximately 8.37 meters at its closest point to the Natural Boundary of the Sea (which meets the setback requirement). The property was purchased by the current owners in 2010. The subject property is zoned RS-1 “Cottage Residential Zone”. The Applicant seeks a variance both the front yard setback and the Natural Boundary of the Sea. However, only the Natural Boundary of the Sea as set out in GVRD Electoral Area A Zoning Bylaw 1144, 2011, (the “Zoning Bylaw”), Section 212(2) applies and prevails because of section 312 (4). The request is to reduce the a minimum setback to 5.11 meters from 7.5 meters as authorized by sections 212 (2)(a) and 212 (2)(b) of the Zoning Bylaw (see references). The requested variance is shown on the attached legal survey as part of the application package. A geotechnical report accepted by Metro Vancouver and provincial covenants registered on Title are also attached as information. The new deck was built in 2011 without a building permit and is not inconsistent with the siting requirements of the current Zoning Bylaw. The new deck has a larger footprint compared to the original (1992) legal non-conforming deck. Any modification to the original deck (1992) would be subject non-conforming siting legislation under section 911 of the Local Government Act.


MSUNNER

Text Box

B.1. b.

2

Metro Vancouver planning staff have outlined the Board of Variance considerations noted in section 901 of the Local Government Act. Questions to consider when contemplating a variance are:

• Result in inappropriate development? • Adversely affect the natural environment? • Substantially affect use and enjoyment of adjacent land? • Vary permitted uses or densities? • Defeat the intent of the bylaw?

The Board of Variance procedures are set out in Greater Vancouver Regional District Board of Variance Bylaw 1102. 4. STAFF COMMENTS

The decision of the Board of Variance with respect to this matter will be sent to the property owner. If a variance is granted, the variance will be registered on Title at the Land Title Office. The applicant will then proceed with preparation of a complete Building Permit application. If the variance is not granted, the applicant will be required to remove the portion of the deck in contravention of the Zoning Bylaw. The decision of the Board of Variance is final and cannot be appealed. Attachments:

1. Subject Site Maps and photos. 2. Application to the Board of Variance received February 28th, 2014. 3. Geotechnical Report dated December 7, 2012. 4. Provincial Covenant BF 277589 registered on Title 5. Provincial Covenant BF 277588 registered on Title

Reference: GVRD Electoral Area A Zoning Bylaw 1144, 2011 http://www.metrovancouver.org/boards/bylaws/Bylaws/GVRD_Bylaw_1144.pdf


http://www.metrovancouver.org/boards/bylaws/Bylaws/GVRD_Bylaw_1144.pdf

MSUNNER

Text Box

8736352

MSUNNER

Pencil

3

Map of 1 - General Area

Map of 2 - Specific Area


MSUNNER

Text Box

B.1. b. Attachment 1

4

Photo 1: August 26, 2008 By the BC Assessment Authority

Photo 2: November 9th, 2011 taken by the GVRD Building Inspector


Electoral Area A

Electoral Area Administration Tel. 604 432-6383 Fax 604 432-4970

Board of Variance Application

Applicant Information

Name: � Nlt£tZ(;:Ir'J No·rvnzt '\ltrrJ . Mailing Address: ?� L- E3A:?·r

Phone: b?4' � Bb ' "5lQ 2-C>

Registered Owner Information

Email Address (print): PNI c.?;?OrJ �2--€!. � t-(..,I\'U./, (lOt-( •

Full Legal Name: _--4-�-= -'--"""""""'-----L.N----,-LU=$7;ON:::.....o....:=",--"--_�-L\'_-->�""" -=".a. -4---INJ-.-.="",-l t:.:...$ ..... G"""-""Oo<..:.l--....I-'=-____ _

Full Legal Name: _______________________________ _

Mailing Address(es): �l- � ltp11t\ 7�

f\.b\l{lt\: '\l.I'\N &J\ J\l� B, L .

Phone: 604- · 4 B 6 ' Db ZO Email Address (print):: 'PNlL� 53z..��rt1\VL .('011

Property and Variance Information

Zoning: ___ +={2;=-7�.,=---__:...� ______________________ _

Legal Description: !3coC,?- C. DI.L< =t-o'54 �t2Ql)P WE;T.

2a �-c �� ProjecUCivic Address: -----''''''-�-''---''�;....t+-l."..L.;!....l-l__-...,.��-'I;��"'"'__+-=::=---------------

Project Description (Please detail the proposed construction project}: _______________ _

�� !� rsM1 �. Variance Requested (Please detail the variance(s) to the Zoning Bylaw that you are requesting and the applicable section of the bylaw to be varied).

Variance Requested: Zoning Bylaw Section:

Example: front yard setback from required 7.5 metres

to 6.2 metres

SUSTAINABLE REGION INITIATIVE. ..

Section 304.3

2-\2

TURNING IDEAS INTO ACTION

Page 10'2 Board of Variance - 2014 Apr 2 - 14

MSUNNER

Text Box


MSUNNER

Rectangle

MSUNNER

Rectangle

MSUNNER

Rectangle

MSUNNER

Rectangle

MSUNNER

Rectangle

MSUNNER

Rectangle

MSUNNER

Rectangle

Metro Vancouver Board of Variance Application

l',Iature of Undue Hardship (Please detail the undue hardship that is the reason for your application, if there is not enough space below please attach a separate sheet to the application and again, please be specific):

�IGNED AND SEALED LEGAL SURVEY ENCLOSED

A legal survey from a certified British Columbia Land Surveyor is required to confirm proposed dimensions and distances. The legal survey needs

to include all existing and proposed improvements on the subject property and show distances from outer corners, decks and external walls to

adjacent property lines, easements and watercourses.

o BUILDING ELEVATIONS ENCLOSED (if applicable - only for height variances)

J21$300 APPLICATION FEE ENCLOSED (cheque should be made out to the "GVRD")

Agent Designation (if applicable)

Please note, if you are not the Registered Owner of the property that requires Board of Variance approval, a letter signed by the owner is required

prior to the Board of Variance meeting that allows you to act as a representative on his/her behalf. Neither Board members nor Metro Vancouver staff

are responsible for the completeness or accuracy of this application form. Please provide all the necessary information so that the Board members

and District staff will be able to properly consider your request.

I hereby designate _______________ t,0 act as my agent in matters related to this application.

Registered Owner's Name (Print): _________ Owner's Signature: _ ______ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Registered Owner's Name (Print): Owner's Signature: _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _____ _

Signatures

I certify that the attached submission is complete and accurate, and includes all of t v. items.

Registered Owner's Name (Print) : p� I'¥,� Owner's Signature:_-7'I!,.....,,�p.J.._-

__ .Date ft::t? vel.ILt· Registered Owner's Name (Print) : � tJuqzo/'....l Owner's Signature: Date 'feB ?£>{ \1. Applicant Name (Print): � N� Applicant's Signature: Date frez Z�'t -The Board of Variance operates pursuant to the regulations as established by Section 901 of the Local Government Act and GVRD "Electoral Area A Board of Variance Bylaw No. 857,1997" (a bylaw that provides for the establishment of a Board of Variance).

Office Use Only - Information below to be completed by Metro Vancouver Staff

Details of variances requested and the applicable section of the bylaw: _____________________ _

Decision of the Board of Variance: ____________________________ _____ _

Chairperson: ________ .Member: __________ Member: _______________ _

Updated January 2014

Page 2 0f2


.RECEIVED FEB 2 8 2014

Metro Vancouver - Legal

2014



Introduction

29 East Croker was purchased in 2010. Improvements were made to the existing cabin after purchase.

In addition to the improvements to the cabin, exterior decks were reconstructed and added. See before

and after photographs below.

Original Cabin (Built circa 1978 with Addition circa 1992)

Renovated Cabin (2012)

2



Despite the dramatically different appearance from the waterfront, the footprint of the cabin did not

change, all the existing interior room sizes remained the same, the number of windows did not increase,

the area of window openings did not increase. Other than the obvious deck additions on the West

Elevation (front), one door was installed in an opening that was originally a window to maximize the use

of the living room and front deck and a number of skylights were added to increase natural light within

the cabin.

Project Description

Renovate existing cabin, reconstruct existing west and south decks and extend both west facing decks

(main level and second level) north the entire length of the cabin.

Variances Requested

1. Front Yard Setback from 15.0M to 5.11M (Section 312.3)

2. Natural Boundary of the Sea from15.0M to 5.11M (Section 212)

Nature of Undue Hardship

1. The setback of the existing cabin that was constructed circa 1978 is approximately 8.37 meters

(at its closest point to the natural boundary - see survey) and does not conform.

2. The setback of the addition to the original cabin that was constructed circa 1992 is approximately


3. The setback of the existing deck that was presumably constructed circa 1992 was approximately


4. The setbacks of the adjacent properties immediately north and immediately south are similar or

less than the subject property as per the attached survey.

5. The setbacks of the remaining properties in Block C are similar. Without doing a survey of all of

the properties in Block C, it would appear that all of the decks and most of the cabins are within

the 15.0 meter setback zoning requirement.

3



6. The subject property was non-conforming prior to being purchased in 2010.

7. The setback of the original deck, specifically at the southwest corner, is approximately, if not

exactly the same as the reconstructed deck. Although it is not clearly visible in the original

photograph, the stairs up to the main deck start at the same location and elevation at the end of

the ramp from the dock as the new stairs. For a standard set of stairs to end at the same

elevation, in this case the front door threshold elevation, the total run or the horizontal distance

has to be similar if not the same. Therefor the deck projection off the front door must be similar

if not the same.

8. The decks that were reconstructed or added were not excessive in nature and are similar in

width as the other decks in Block C.

Conclusion

Improvements were made to the property in the late 70's and early 90's that are currently non

confirming. Additional improvements were made after the purchase of the property in 2010 that are

also non-confirming. Those improvements could never have been conforming considering the existing

conditions of the property.

There is nothing that can be done to make the decks or the cabin conform without tearing them down

and rebuilding. Considering the overall streetscape of Block C and the opinions of the neighbours, 29

East Croker would blend in better with the neighbouring cabins in its current setting than if it were to be

torn down and rebuilt further back on the property.

For the cabin to conform to the current Front Yard Setback and Natural Boundary of the Sea Zoning

Bylaws, a large clear-cut would be required to site the cabin further back on the property. If that were

to happen it would be the only cabin in Block C to be setback properly and would stand out like a sore

thumb. We don't want this and neither do our neighbours.

Peter Nilsson

Owner, 29 East Croker

4


BRITISH COLUMBIA LAND SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE OF LOCATION

PLAN SHOWING LOCATION OF CERTAIN STRUCTURES LOCATED ON

BLOCK C, DL 7059, Gp 1, NWD

P. I. D. No. 017-853-982

CIVIC ADDRESS INDICATED, 29 EAST OF CROKER ISLAND

NOTE, LOT DIMENSIONS ARE BASED ON PLAN OF DISTRICT LOT

CHARGES ON TITLE

No. DESCRIPTION

SF277588 COVENANT (PROVINCE)

BF277589 COVENANT (PROVINCE)

z «

o Z I-<

CLIENT, NILSSON

THIS PLAN SHOULD NOT BE USED TO ESTABLISH BOUNDARIES.

Gary Holme eCLS, CLS

qS02- 1215 Lansdowne D rive

Coquitlam, B, C.

V3E 2P2

ph/fax, 604 464 6981

E-mail: gary_holme@hotmail. com

Fi le, 460/12

Owg. File, 460BLC. OAT

L:.ECK 2. 55

-So

o W1

11 _

,- -1--:;---:--:--,

7. 4 8

, , I , , '" "

EX. HOUSE , i;; -,

0

I I I , 11. 24

'-.6. 93 , DECK ' __ I , / --------- I

,\0, L _ I /b< g ---: lf1 0

en

I HOUSE

1':ge

SCALE 1: 250 (METRIC)

BLOCK 'S'

110.73

96. 78

BLOCK 'C'

113. 26

BLOCK 'A'

THIS PLAN WAS PREPARED FOR THE EXCLUSIVE USE OF OUR CLIENT. THE SIGNATORY ACCEPTS NO

RESPONSIBILiTY OR LIABILITY FOR ANY DAMAGES

THAT MAY BE SUFFERED BY A THIRD PARTY AS A

RESULT OF REPRODUCTION, TRANSMISSION, OR

ALTERATION TO THIS DOCUMENT WITHOUT THE

CONSENT OF THE SIGNATORY.

94. 86

a) -.r 0 en

PLAN VALID ONLY WHEN

ORIGINALLY SIGNED AND SEALED

:>: " '"

,,' 0-: co CL I-

If) m

U w (/)

CERTIFIED CORRECT FOR BUILDING INSPECTION

PURPOSES ONLY. DATED THIS 12th DAY OF

JULY, 2012

Ai !z'f.42. ...

GARY N. HOLME, BCLS o 2012


1

Peter Nilsson December 7, 2012 North Vancouver, BC, V7L 2Y3 With respect to: Block C, DL7059, Group 1, NWD (PID 017-853-982) on the east side of Indian Arm, near Blackburn Creek. To satisfy Section 56 of the Community Charter governing issuance of building permits and requests of assurance that “the land may be used is safe for the use intended,” Metro Vancouver has required the proponent have a qualified professional conduct a landslide hazard/risk assessment (APEGBC 2010) at the subject property.

It is my understanding that the subject property, Block C, DL7059, Group 1, NWD (PID 017-853-982) is a freehold lot with an existing house originally built sometime in the 1970s and added to in the early 1990s. Recently, the present owner (Peter Nilsson) remodeled the structure, consisting of an update of the interior and exterior finishing, replacement of windows and a rebuild/extension of the exterior deck. No new habitable space was added. It is my understanding that “the building inspector determined that the improvement value was more than 25% of the structure(s) prior to the work being commenced, although the floor area increase was less than 25%” (Tom Pearce, email to Cordilleran on Sept 24, 2012). The work was conducted without benefit of a building permit, and the permit is being sought retroactively. Landslide Hazard and Risk Evaluation A hazard is a phenomenon with the potential to cause harm; it is usually represented by a magnitude and recurrence interval (see Table 1). The harm done, or the consequence, is a product of factors, including 1) whether an event will reach a site, 2) whether elements at risk will be present when the site is affected by the hazard, 3) how vulnerable the elements at risk are to the hazard affecting the site, and 4) the value of the elements at risk, or the number of persons exposed. The product of hazard and consequence is risk. Table 1. Qualitative hazard frequency categories (Source: MoE 1999). Qualitative frequency

Annual return frequency

Comments

Very high (VH)

>1/20 Hazard is well within the lifetime of a person or typical structure. Clear fresh signs of hazard are present.

High (H) 1/100 to 1/20 Hazard could happen within the lifetime of a person or structure. Events are identifiable from deposits and vegetation, but may not appear fresh.

Moderate (M) 1/500 to 1/100 Hazard within a given lifetime is possible, but not likely. Signs of previous events may not be easily noted.

Low (L) 1/2500 to 1/500 The hazard is of uncertain significance. Very low (VL) <1/2500 The occurrence of the hazard is remote.


MSUNNER

Text Box


2

Canada, BC and Metro Vancouver have no legislation or bylaws defining risk

tolerance to landslides and associated phenomenon, and the term “safe” has not been legally defined. In considering risk tolerance, an important concept is that risk of loss of life from natural hazards should not add substantially to that from all life’s usual factors (driving, health, recreation, etc) combined. For reference, the risk of death and injury from driving in Canada is approximately 1/10,000 and 1/1000 per annum, respectively (Transport Canada 2011).

In the absence of a definition of safety from the approving agency, this report will follow Fraser Valley Regional District’s policy (Cave 1993), as adopted by Millard (2012) for the lease lots on Indian Arm. The Cave (1993) matrices for hazards potentially affecting the subject property are presented in Table 2, below.

Table 2. Hazard acceptability thresholds for building permit approval for minor repair, reconstruction and extension considering select geologic hazards (after Cave 1993). Ratios indicate frequency per annum of the given hazard (Table 1), while the numerals 1-5 indicate the management response listed below the table. Flooding 1/40 1/40-1/200 <1/200 Major repair 4 3 1 Reconstruction 4 3 1 Extension 4 3 1 Mtn stream avulsion 1/10 1/10-1/100 1/100-1/200 1/200-1/500 <1/500 Major repair 5 4 2 1 1 Reconstruction 5 5 2 2 1 Extension 5 5 2 2 1 Debris slide/flow 1/50 1/50-1/200 1/200-1/500 1/500-1/10,000 <1/10000 Major repair 5 4 2 1 1 Reconstruction 5 5 4 3 1 Extension 5 5 4 2 1 Rockfall 1/100 1/100-1/500 1/500-1/1000 1/1000-1/10000 <1/10000 Major repair 5 4 2 1 1 Reconstruction 5 4 2 1 1 Extension 5 5 4 1 1 Snow avalanche 1/30 1/30-1/100 1/100-1/500 1/500-1/10000 <1/10000 Major repair 5 4 4 4 1 Reconstruction 5 4 4 4 1 Extension 5 4 4 4 1 Major landslide 1/200 1/200-1/500 1/500-1/1000 1/1000-1/10000 <1/10000 Major repair 5 5 2 1 1 Reconstruction 5 5 5 1 1 Extension 5 5 5 1 1 1 - Approval without conditions relating to hazards. 2 – Approval without siting conditions or protective works conditions, but with a registered covenant against title. 3 – Approval, but with siting requirements to avoid the hazard, or with requirements for protective works to mitigate the hazard. 4 – Approval as (3) above, but with a registered covenant against title as well as siting conditions, protective works, or both 5 – Not approvable.


3

Shoreline Hazard With respect to the natural boundary of the sea – section 212 of the Zoning Bylaw states “no area used for habitation, shall be located within any building, or structure, such that the underside of any suspended floor system, or the top of any slab on grade or mobile home pad is less than 1.5 metres above the natural boundary of the sea.” Assessment Methodology This report follows landslide risk assessment methods outlined by APEGBC (2010). A statement assuring this fact is attached to the report (Appendix 1).

The assessment is based on office review of existing reports conducted for properties near the subject property, and on field work. Field work consisted of a low level helicopter overflight conducted on June 6, 2011 with Tom Millard (MoFLNRO) and Larry Syroishko (BC Parks), and a foot traverse of the Blackburn Creek debris cone on August 14, 2012.

The helicopter flight proceeded slowly from the mouth of Blackburn Creek along the channel to the top of the watershed, then past the high cliffs on the face south of the watershed (Fig. 1). The type of observations recorded were landslide tracks, volumes of debris storage along the channel, and tension cracks in bedrock. Observations from the foot traverse included surficial material, surface slope, evidence of geomorphic activity, measurement of depth of incision of the creek into its cone measured at the apex and at regular intervals downstream to the mouth, and shovel testing to examine the degree of soil development on the debris cone surface. Background Reports Reports reviewed included Nhc (1990) and Millard (2012a,b,c). These previous reports reviewed all available historical air photos and reported on observed/recorded landslide activity. They describe Blackburn Creek as being entrenched in its debris cone some 6-12 m in depth. The entrenched channel fed an active fan at the creek mouth, while the raised part of the debris cone was said to be inactive.

With respect to the active area, Nhc (1990) noted an event destroyed a cabin on DL 6921a in about 1982 or 1983. Millard (2012), citing personal communication with Rob Wilson (BC Parks), reported that the rebuilt cabin on DL 6921a was damaged on or about 2003, and destroyed in 2008 or 2009. Millard (2012) concluded “debris flows on Blackburn Creek appear to be frequent. Aerial photographs from 1957, 1968, and 1996 all show a freshly scoured channel, and field evidence indicates another event in about 2006. The history of DL 6921A suggests debris flows occurred in 1982, 2003, and 2008 (approximate years).”

Millard (2012) concluded “the recent debris flows [on Blackburn Creek] are small, as the channel has remained in the same location despite these events, and recent debris flow deposits outside of the channel are limited in their extent. Most debris flows from Blackburn Creek appear to be in the order of 103

m3 (Class 3, Table 3) and the

channel appears to be mostly bedrock with very little stored sediment. However if channel storage occurs for a more extended period of time, a 104

m3 (Class 4, Table 3)

debris flow is possible.” With respect to the inactive debris cone area, Nhc (1990) stated “overflow or

avulsion is improbable as the result of normal fluvial processes. However overflow may


4

result from jamming during a debris torrent. Jams as high as 10 m have been observed on the Queen Charlotte Islands.” Millard (2012) concluded that the inactive debris cone was subject to low or very low hazard levels. Table 3. Landslide size classification and destructive capacity (Jakob 2005).

Class Volume (m3)

Peak discharge (m3/s) Potential consequences

1 <102 <5 Very localized damage, known to have killed forestry workers in small gullies and damaged small buildings.

2 102-103 5-30 Bury cars, destroy small wooden buildings, break trees, block culverts, and damage heavy machinery.

3 103-104 30-200 Destroy larger buildings, damage concrete structures, damage roads and pipelines, and block creeks.

4 104-105 200-1,500 Destroy camps, destroy sections of infrastructure corridor, damage bridges and block creeks.

5 105-106 1,500-12,000 Destroy camps and forest up to 2km2 in area, block creeks and small rivers.

Geomorphic Description and Hazard Assessment Blackburn Creek watershed has a basin area of 0.6 km2, an overall steepness of 150%, and is underlain by competent granitic bedrock. The two main channels draining the watershed have been scoured to bedrock, as clearly visible from the air and the water. Based on the basin’s small size and ruggedness it may be expected to be prone to debris flow activity (Wilford et al 2005). On the helicopter overview flight and in the airphoto review by Millard (2012), no evidence of potential bedrock instability was noted. The basin’s maximum elevation is 1250 m, below the alpine zone, therefore there are no large snow avalanche initiation zones. Small snow avalanches may initiate along the upper channels, but on the debris cone they appear to remain confined by the left bank and do not affect the inactive debris cone surface upslope of the subject property. The Blackburn Creek debris cone covers about 5.5 ha. at the base of slope between sea level and 80 m elevation. It slopes 40-45% with an irregular to lobed surface expression, and is underlain by subrounded to subangular boulder gravel with boulders reaching up to 4 m diameter. The surface supports well developed podzolic soils (Valentine et al. 1978).

Field measurements indicate the modern channel is entrenched to a depth of 14 m at the apex of the debris cone, about 150 m from the beach the degree of confinement falls to 10 m, and then 80 m from the beach is the apex of the modern active fan where the confinement is reduced to less than 5 m or so (Fig. 1). The active channel has a gradient of 20-25% slope.

The slope difference between the active channel and the boulder cone indicates that the inactive portion of the fan was built by different processes than are active today, and the well developed podzol indicates that landslide events have not affected the fan surface for thousands of years (Protz et al 1984; Jakob and Friele 2010). It is very likely that the debris cone is paraglacial in origin (Church and Ryder 1972), having formed in hundreds (Ballantyne 1995) or at most a thousand years (Lian and Hickin 1993) following deglaciation.


5

Figure 1. Blackburn Creek and debris cone, showing location of the subject property, a measured channel cross section and slope profile from the steep rock face above the debris cone. The inset photo depicts the same features as the map.


6

A channel cross section was measured at a location about 150 m from the beach (Fig. 1). Here the incised channel is 14 m deep and about 40 m wide, supporting an inset terrace about 6.5 m above the main channel floor. The total cross sectional area of the entrenched channel at that location is 430 m2. Assuming a debris flow with a velocity of 5-10 m/s, a peak discharge of 2150-4300 m3/s would be required to overtop the channel banks. Using the regression equation for peak discharge versus volume for granular flows in British Columbia (V=28*Q1.11; Bovis and Jakob 1999), the events would have to have volumes of 140,000-300,000 m3 (Class 5, Table 3) to cause overtopping. Based on an entrainment rate of 10-20 m3/m and a 1300 m long channel (Fig. 1), this size of event is 1-order of magnitude larger and may not be credible based on the competent bedrock-dominated watershed character.

The steep slope directly above the subject property could be subject to rockfall and open slope debris slides. No extensive rockfall talus slope is evident at the foot of slope along the east margin of the debris cone, and scattered rockfall blocks are not present on the debris cone.

Millard (2012) states “airphoto coverage since 1952 shows no open slope landslides larger than 1 ha have occurred in the source areas [parkland on east side of Indian Arm]. Considering that this size of landslide is likely visible for at least 50 years, it is unlikely that any landslides of this size have occurred in the project area for over 100 years. Open slope landslides in the source areas are typically smaller than 0.2 ha.” The slope above the Blackburn Creek debris cone is 370 m long. Given an open slope failure from near the crest of slope and on average 20 m wide, a slide could have an area of 0.8 ha., and with an average thickness of 1 m, a volume of 8000 m3 is estimated. Open slope slides with volume of 5000-10,000 m3 (Class 3-4 m3; Table 3) could affect the fan surface (see shadow zone on Fig. 1 inset profile), but the well developed soils on the cone suggest this has not happed for thousands of years. Further, the rough (large bouldery) and irregular surface expression and southwesterly slope direction of the surface would likely rapidly arrest and/or direct any events away from the building site on the subject property.

Although not surveyed, based on visual observation, the floor system for the habitable space (footing pads) is several metres higher than 1.5 m above the natural boundary of the sea, on soils that are coarse grained and not vulnerable to shoreline erosion.

On the basis of the office review and field observations, the suite of hazards that should be evaluated are normal water floods, mountain stream avulsion, open slope landslides, channelised debris flow, rockfall, snow avalanche and catastrophic landslide. In Table 4, the estimated hazard level for each of these processes is indicated, a short rationale summarised from the discussion above, and the management recommendations derived from Table 2 are indicated for three types of proposed development: major repair, extension and reconstruction.


7

Table 4. Summary of hazards affecting the subject property, and management response for major repair/reconstruction/extension.

Hazard

Hazard level (Table 1) Rationale

Management response (Table 2)

Flood Not credible

Due to the depth of channel incision in the debris cone, Blackburn Creek is not able to flood the subject property. The footings of the building are more than 1.5 m above the natural boundary of the sea.

1/1/1

Mountain stream avulsion

VL Although Nhc (1990) postulated debris jams could cause avulsion, the magnitude of the debris flow would have to be very large, hence very rare, and the lack of channeling and the well developed soil on the debris cone surface suggests stream avulsion has not occurred since channel entrenchment.

1/1/1

Open slope debris slide

VL Although the lot is in a potential open slope slide shadow zone, no evidence for such events was observed on or near the lot. The hummocky/bouldery surface expression and the southwesterly slope of the apex of the cone is such that slides would be arrested or deflected before reaching the existing home.

1/3/2

Channelised debris flow

VL The only mechanism whereby a debris flow could reach the lot is if a very large debris flow were to occur on Blackburn Creek, or if the channel was plugged during an event. The degree of soil development on the debris cone suggests this is an exceedingly rare occurrence.

1/3/2

Rockfall VL Although the lot is in a potential rockfall shadow zone, no rockfall was observed on or near the subject property indicating the frequency of occurrence is exceedingly low.

1/1/1

Snow avalanche

Not credible

There is no extensive alpine initiation zone. Snow avalanche size is restricted to volumes that can collect along the upper reaches of the channel. Snow avalanches appear to reach the apex of the fan, and may affect the incised channel and north portion of the fan. No evidence of snow avalanche activity on the relict fan surface south of the incised channel.

1/1/1

Major landslide

VL to not credible

There is no evidence of deep seated bedrock instability in the basin headwaters, or prehistoric deposits on the debris cone.

1/1/1


8

Conclusions 1. The subject property is located on a relict debris flow cone, a paraglacial landform that

is a product of the geologic past. The existing building has recently undergone major repair, and the owner requires a retroactive building permit to support that work.

2. The attatched assurance statement certifies the work is done to the required professional standard (APEGBC 2010). Herein, the “land” refers to the land upon which the existing building is sited as shown on the attached legal survey (Holme 2012). Based on this assessment, and in agreement with previous assessments reviewed herein, I certify that:

(a) the land may be used safely for the use intended; and (b) I have taken into consideration the exposure of the building to flooding, mud

flows, debris flows, debris torrents, erosion, land slip, rockfall, subsidence and avalanche in certifying that the land may be used safely for the use intended.

3. According to the hazard acceptability criteria in use by the Fraser Valley Regional District since 1993 (Cave 1993), an improvement of more than 25% in value would be considered a major repair. Following the safety standard established by Cave (Table 4), “I certify that the land may be used safely for the use intended;” with respect to major repair, as recently conducted by the owner, there should be “approval without conditions relating to hazards;” in the future if a building permit for an extension of the habitable space is sought then there should be “approval without siting conditions or protective works conditions, but with a registered covenant against title;” in the case the building is to be torn down or is destroyed (e.g., by fire) and a building permit for reconstruction is sought then there should be “approval, but with siting requirements to avoid the hazard, or with requirements for protective works to mitigate the hazard.” Should reconstruction be considered, then at that time more detailed hazard analysis would be required to refine the magnitude-frequency and intensity of the hazard affecting the proposed building site, and to define/design the siting constraints or protective measures.

References APEGBC, 2010. Guidelines for legislated landslide assessments for proposed residential

development in British Columbia. APEGBC, Burnaby, BC. Ballantyne, C.K., 1995. Paraglacial debris-cone formation on recently deglaciated terrain,

western Norway. The Holocene 1995 5(1): 25-33. BC Ministry of Environment. 1999. “Mapping and Assessing Terrain Stability

Guidebook, Second Edition. 36 p. Bovis, M., and Jakob, M., 1999. The role of debris supply conditions in predicting debris

flow activity. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 24: 1039-1054. Canadian Standards Association, 1997. Risk Management: Guideline for Decision

Makers. Church, M. and Ryder, J.M., 1972. Paraglacial Sedimentation; A Consideration of Fluvial

Processes Conditioned by Glaciation. Geological Society of America Bulletin, vol.83(10): 3059-3072.

Corominas, J., 1996. The angle of reach as a mobility index for small and large landslides. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 33: 260-271.


9

Holme, G., 2012. BCLS Plan showing location of certain structures located on Block C, DL 7059, Gp1, NWD. Dwg # 4608LC.DAT. Legal survey plan for Peter Nilsson.

Jakob, M., 2005. A size classification for debris flows. Engineering Geology, 79: 151-161.

Jakob, M., and Friele, P.A., 2010. Frequency and magnitude of debris flows on Cheekye River, British Columbia. Geomorphology, 114: 382–395.

Lian, O.B., and Hickin, E.J., 1993. Late Pleistocene stratigraphy and chronology of lower Seymour Valley, southwestern British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, 30(4): 841-850.

Millard, T., 2012a. Terrain hazard assessment for DL 4217B, Indian Arm. Report to Jennie Aikman, A/Planning Section Head, BC Parks, North Vancouver, BC.

Millard, T., 2012b. Terrain hazard assessment for DL 7058C, Indian Arm. Report to Jennie Aikman, A/Planning Section Head, BC Parks, North Vancouver, BC.

Millard, T., 2012c. Terrain hazard assessment for DL 7058B, Indian Arm. Report to Jennie Aikman, A/Planning Section Head, BC Parks, North Vancouver, BC.

Northwest Hydraulic Consultants. 1990. Shoreline Sales Program Hazard Study Indian Arm, Lillooet Lake and Harrison Lake. Prepared for Ministry of Environment. 32 p plus appendices.

Protz, R., Martini, P., Ross, G.J., and Terasmea, R.J., 1984. Rate of podzolic soil formation near Hudsons Bay, Ontario. Canadian Journal of Soil Science, 64:31-49.

Transport Canada, 2011- http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/roadsafety/tp-tp3322-2007-1039.htm#t12

Valentine, K.W.G., P.N. Sprout, T.E. Baker and L.M. Lavkulich. 1978. The Canadian system of soil classification. 3rd ed. Agriculture Canada Publication 1646. 164 pp.

Wilford, D.J., Sakals, M.E., Grainger, W.W., Millard, T.H., and Giles, T.R., 2005. Managing forested watersheds for hydrogeomorphic risk on fans. Land Management Handbook 61. BC Ministry of Forests and Range, Victoria, BC.

Wise, M., Moore, G., and VanDine, D., 2004. Landslide Risk Case Studies in Forest Development Planning and Operations. B.C. Ministry of Forests, Victoria, BC.

Water, Land and Air Protection, 2004. Flood hazard area land use management guidelines. Province of British Columbia, Victoria, BC.

Closure This report was prepared for use by Peter Nilsson, including distribution as required for purposes for which the report was commissioned. The report cannot be distributed to other third parties without prior written consent by Cordilleran Geoscience. The work has been carried out in accordance with generally accepted geoscience practice. Judgment has been applied in developing the conclusions stated herein. No other warranty is made, either expressed or implied to our clients, third parties, and any regulatory agencies affected by the conclusions. If you have any questions please call, Pierre Friele, M.Sc., P.Geo. Professional Geoscientist


10

Appendix 1: LANDSLIDE ASSESSMENT ASSURANCE STATEMENT Note: This Statement is to be read and completed in conjunction with the "APEGBC Guidelines for Legislated Landslide Assessments for Proposed Residential Development in British Columbia", March 2006 / Revised September 2008 ("APEGBC Guidelines") and the "2006 BC Building Code (BCBC 2006)" and is to be provided for landslide assessments (not floods or flood controls) for the purposes of the Land Title Act, Community Charter or the Local Government Act. Italicized words are defined in the APEGBC Guidelines. To: The Approving Authority Date: December 7, 2012 Metro Vancouver With reference to (check one): � Land Title Act (Section 86) – Subdivision Approval � Local Government Act (Sections 919.1 and 920) – Development Permit X Community Charter (Section 56) – Building Permit � Local Government Act (Section 910) – Flood Plain Bylaw Variance � Local Government Act (Section 910) – Flood Plain Bylaw Exemption � British Columbia Building Code 2006 sentences 4.1.8.16 (8) and 9.4.4.4.(2). (Refer to

BC Building and Safety Policy Branch Information Bulletin B10-01 issued January 18, 2010)

For the Property: Block C, DL7059, Group 1, NWD (PID 017-853-982) Legal description and civic address of the Property The undersigned hereby gives assurance that he/she is a Qualified Professional and is a Professional Engineer or Professional Geoscientist. I have signed, sealed and dated, and thereby certified, the attached landslide assessment report on the Property in accordance with the APEGBC Guidelines. That report must be read in conjunction with this Statement. In preparing that report I have: Check to the left of applicable items X_1. Collected and reviewed appropriate background information X_2. Reviewed the proposed residential development on the Property X_3. Conducted field work on and, if required, beyond the Property X_4. Reported on the results of the field work on and, if required, beyond the Property ___5. Considered any changed conditions on and, if required, beyond the Property

6. For a landslide hazard analysis or landslide risk analysis I have: X_6.1 reviewed and characterized, if appropriate, any landslide that may affect the

Property X_6.2 estimated the landslide hazard X_6.3 identified existing and anticipated future elements at risk on and, if required,

beyond the Property


11

_6.4 estimated the potential consequences to those elements at risk

7. Where the Approving Authority has adopted a level of landslide safety I have: __7.1 compared the level of landslide safety adopted by the Approving Authority

with the findings of my investigation __7.2 made a finding on the level of landslide safety on the Property based on the

comparison __7.3 made recommendations to reduce landslide hazards and/or landslide risks

8. Where the Approving Authority has not adopted a level of landslide safety I have: X_8.1 described the method of landslide hazard analysis or landslide risk analysis

used X_8.2 referred to an appropriate and identified provincial, national or international

guideline for level of landslide safety X_8.3 compared this guideline with the findings of my investigation X_8.4 made a finding on the level of landslide safety on the Property based on the

comparison ___8.5 made recommendations to reduce landslide hazards and/or landslide risks

___9. Reported on the requirements for future inspections of the Property and

recommended who should conduct those inspections. Based on my comparison between Check one � the findings from the investigation and the adopted level of landslide safety (item 7.2 above) X the appropriate and identified provincial, national or international guideline for level of landslide safety (item 8.4 above) I hereby give my assurance based on the conditions(1) contained in the attached landslide assessment report Check one or more where appropriate � for subdivision approval, as required by the Land Title Act (Section 86), “that the land may be used safely for the use intended” Check one � with one or more recommended registered covenants. � without any registered covenant. � for a development permit, as required by the Local Government Act (Sections 919.1 and 920), my report will “assist the local government in determining what conditions or requirements under [Section 920] subsection (7.1) it will impose in the permit” X for a building permit, as required by the Community Charter (Section 56), “the land may be used safely for the use intended” Check one � with one or more recommended registered covenants. X without any registered covenant.


12

� for flood plain bylaw variance (for debris flows only), as required by the “Flood Hazard Area Land Use Management Guidelines” associated with the Local Government Act (Section 910), “the development may occur safely.” � for flood plain bylaw exemption (for debris flows only), as required by the Local Government Act (Section 910), “the land may be used safely for the use intended.” Pierre Friele, P. Geo., December 7, 2012 Name (print) Date 604-898-4770 Telephone If the Qualified Professional is a member of a firm, complete the following. I am a member of the firm Cordilleran Geoscience and I sign this letter on behalf of the firm. [1] When seismic slope stability assessments are involved, level of landslide safety is considered to be a "life safety" criteria as described in the National Building Code of Canada (NBCC 2005), Commentary on Design for Seismic effects in the User's Guide, Structural Commentaries, Part 4 of division B. This states:

"The primary objective of seismic design is to provide an acceptable level of safety for building occupants and the general public as the building responds to strong ground motion; in other words, to minimize loss of life. This implies that, although there will likely be extensive structural and non-structural damage, during the DGM (design ground motion), there is a reasonable degree of confidence that the building will not collapse nor will its attachments break off and fall on people near the building. This performance level is termed 'extensive damage' because, although the structure may be heavily damaged and may have lost a substantial amount of its initial strength and stiffness, it retains some margin of resistance against collapse".



MSUNNER

Text Box


RMICSONI

Rectangle


MSUNNER

Text Box


RMICSONI

Rectangle

RMICSONI

Rectangle

board of variance agenda - april 2, 2014 - metro vancouver...march 26, 2014 greater vancouver...

Documents