BCAB #1707 - Article, Spatial Separation of Attached Carport

June 14, 2012

BCAB #1707

Re: Article, Spatial Separation of Attached Carport

Project Description

The building in question is a side-by-side duplex with carports included in the front outside corners of each unit. The carports are open toward the side property line and the street and there is a bedroom above. The limiting distance to the side property lines is 1.8 metres.

Reason for Appeal

Subsection 9.10.15. governs spatial separation requirements for residential buildings where there are no dwelling units above another dwelling unit, i.e. detached, semi-detached and row houses. This Subsection refers to the undefined term “glazed openings” instead of the defined term “unprotected openings” used in Subsections 9.10.14. and 3.2.3. regulating spatial separation for other types of buildings. There is no glazing in the exterior sides of the carports in question.

Appellant's Position

The appellant contends the 1.8 metre setback to the side property line is sufficient to permit the open carport and is commonly accepted in other jurisdictions. The appellant does not consider Appeal #1430 (cited by the building official) as an applicable precedent because it relates to a detached carport at 0” from the property line.

Building Official's Position

The building official maintains that the open side of the carport is part of the exposing building face and must be considered as an unprotected opening. Subsection 9.10.15. does not address “unglazed openings” so the spatial separation requirements must be determined using either Subsection 9.10.14. or 3.2.3., neither  of which permit the area of unprotected openings proposed in the side walls of this building.

Appeal Board Decision #1707

It is the determination of the Board that the open sides of the carport do not constitute glazed openings and neither Subsections 9.10.14. nor 3.2.3. are applicable to the building in question. The exterior walls separating the house from the carport are part of the exposing face and the carport does not constitute an opening in that exposing building face.

George Humphrey, Chair