Editor:
Re: Neighbours ‘up in arms,’ Oct. 25.
Bravo to reporter Tracy Holmes for illuminating the questionable decision of the city’s planning department in allowing the motel-like mega-home construction on the corner of Kent Street and Cliff Avenue.
A neighbour in an adjacent house told me the developer originally had applied to the city to build two homes on this large lot. It was only when the planning department denied that application – due to the size of the two houses – that the subsequent 14,000-square-foot structure was then approved. How ironic for everyone in the vicinity, and especially for the home behind it who would have had at least a glimpse of sunlight and sea had two homes been built.
This Kent/Cliff construction is just one example of how our city is opting for big-equals-better builds packed onto residential lots.
Once, comfortable family houses on the hillside were designed to capitalize on vistas of Semiahmoo Bay, without impinging on surrounding neighbours’ views. Now, huge architectural rectangles clad in shakes and cement board jut up and out, blocking sun and ocean visibility for everyone living near and above them.
Who will buy these homes, unless they, too, intend to knock them down and build their own colossal palaces?
White Rock’s city planners are repeatedly approving applications to decrease the distance of new buildings from the street curb. Sometimes this is by half the amount prescribed by city zoning laws.
As one clerk explained, builders know that if affected residents do not attend the city’s board of variance committee meetings and speak against zoning-change applications, the requests are pretty much granted.
The city should carefully consider the impact of every individual view-lot building application, automatically denying any new residence which flouts conventional zoning while negatively impacting the families who have lived in the block and paid taxes there for years.
Diane Petersen, White Rock
• • •
We neighbours are well aware nothing could be done to prevent this permit. We now know that neither council nor the mayor have any authority regarding single-family permits. They also have no oversight body to ensure buildings are in keeping with the neighbourhood.
They, and therefore we, are without a voice.
The committee for building oversight is only for commercial development and it cannot comment on single-family dwelling permits. In other words, the bylaws written in 1998, in a different era, are all our town planners have as guidelines.
It is our opinion that the bylaws fail to protect our community.
Coun. Al Campbell’s comment that concrete courtyards and a rec room underneath a six-car parking garage constitute a beautiful property is one man’s opinion.
The only bright light is planner Paul Stanton’s assurance that bylaw changes are a priority for this council and that changes may be in place by the end of the year.
Lorraine & Chip Hand, White Rock
Transfer of value
We are concerned corner lots in White Rock seem to be a target of developers who find they can get around the setback requirements of the zoning bylaw by applying to the board of variance, thus significantly increasing the building area and value, but at the expense of neighbours who have lived there for years and abided by the rules.
An example is the lot on the corner of Lee Street and Cliff Avenue, where an existing house has just been demolished in preparation for a new house which was allowed by the board to extend out about 10 feet farther toward the street than all the other homes on the block.
This was opposed by about 90 per cent of residents of the block, but their interests were ignored by two of the three members of the board and the application passed.
Some of the factors the board of variance is supposed to consider under the Local Government Act are that an application be for a minor variance where there is undue hardship, where the application does not adversely affect adjacent property and it does not defeat the intent of the zoning. We maintain this is hardly a minor variance and there is no “undue hardship,” as the purchasers should have known the limitations of the bylaw before they bought. Allowing the new house to go 10 feet further than others adversely affects the views of adjacent property and it is contrary to the intent of the zoning.
Of particular concern is that the applicant was apparently told at city hall that building a larger house closer to the street was OK and that they would likely get it approved by going to the board of variance. Surely, the staff should not be promoting this approach.
As longtime citizens of White Rock, we feel this is very unfair treatment, where significant value is taken from one property and arbitrarily given to another.
There are many corner lots in White Rock where similar situations can occur and we feel that council should be taking steps to stop this unfair practice.
Stan Endersby, White Rock