Skip to content

North Vancouver District council says demolish house built without permits

DISTRICT of North Vancouver council has voted unanimously to deny a development variance permit for an addition to a house on Capilano Road, rejecting the opportunity for the home owner to bring the structure into compliance with the municipality's z

DISTRICT of North Vancouver council has voted unanimously to deny a development variance permit for an addition to a house on Capilano Road, rejecting the opportunity for the home owner to bring the structure into compliance with the municipality's zoning bylaws.

Built without permits, the completed structure - a two-storey, 1,554-square-foot addition - is essentially large enough to host a second family.

The unauthorized addition, attached to the original house by a small hallway, does not comply with several of the district's zoning bylaws. Dwellings built in residential single-family zones require minimum rear and side yard setback, and have restrictions on maximum building depth and eave height.

Tucked behind a thicket of tall trees at 4511 Capilano Rd., the home appears well-screened from the street, however the project has been on the radar of the both the district and the Edgemont and Upper Capilano Community Association for several years.

"In addition to the scope of the project itself being completed without the necessary permits, we found the applicants - the clients - not to comply with the stop-work order issued by the district on numerous occasions since April of

2008 to be of particular significance in not supporting the development variance proposal," said Louise Nagle, who represented the community association's executive at the council meeting on Monday night.

"When residents compromise the system, they should be held accountable," added Nagle, noting that members of the executive, including herself, had applied for permits in the past and followed the district process in doing so.

On Monday night, the home owner, Oleg Tchoubarov, pleaded with council and the community for a second chance, claiming that the situation was largely due to a misunderstanding.

"It is not like I am trying to ignore things," said Tchoubarov. "Please, if it is possible, let me go through the normal process."

A former tenant of the property, Kelly Moon appeared before council on Monday night to testify about the pre-existence of an addition on the property as far back to 1993, prior to Tchoubarov's purchase of the home, and his ultimate residence there from 2003 to 2007.

"I viewed the property after they had done the renovations, and I can tell you that the perimeter was exactly the same - the only difference was is that it was higher vertically," said Moon.

Tchoubarov was also joined by Vancouver architect, Doug Massie, who testified during the public input session about the estimated age of the addition's foundation.

"When we first looked at it, we thought that the foundations for that building were at least 30 years old," said Massie, who reassured council that if the variance permit were issued, there would be no problem achieving the engineering requirements to bring the addition into compliance with the district's zoning bylaws.

According to municipal staff, the only record of any kind of permit for a structure in the area is for a small cinder block-accessory building issued back in the 1970s.

Monday night, councillors expressed concern over the precedent that Tchoubarov's case would set if a variance permit were issued.

"We made every effort to stop it and bring the whole process into compliance and that is not the situation we find ourselves in," said Coun. Roger Bassam, indicating his support of the motion to deny the development variance permit.

Since the spring of 2008, municipal staff say they have made numerous efforts - from attempted telephone calls and written letters to the delivery of an on-site field notice - requesting that construction be stopped. In 2009, construction had not ceased, and the district obtain a court injunction to have the illegally constructed work removed. There is now a notice on the home's title that indicates a council resolution has been made in relation to the property.

As recently as Wednesday morning, the property remained listed for sale on several real estate sites, with no indication to potential buyers that the addition is in contravention of district's building regulation and zoning bylaws.

If the district is successful at trial, set for Sept. 22 and 23, Tchoubarov will be required by court order to remove the fully renovated addition, or otherwise, face the consequences of being held in contempt of court.

newsroom@nsnews.com