Two City of Powell River zoning bylaws reviewed at a public hearing received unanimous opposition from members of the public in attendance.
Zoning Bylaw 2378, 2014, is a bylaw to amend a bylaw from 2006 by consolidating the R1 and R2 zones and the one- and two-family dwelling components of the RM1 zone all into a new R1 residential area. The second, Bylaw 2380, 2014, was also an amendment to a 2006 zoning bylaw, making additions to the meaning of a duplex. The public hearing was held in the city council chambers mid-September.
Darren Edwards, of Henderson Edwards Developments Ltd., spoke to Bylaw 2378. “This council and the councils of the past have promised the developers of Powell River that we would be involved from the get-go of any proposed bylaw amendments or changes that would affect our business,” he said. “We feel this proposed change is going to greatly interfere with development in Powell River. Currently, we have R1, R2 and RM1 zones. For 20 years I’ve been building homes in Powell River and it’s never caused a problem.”
He said a report on the proposed bylaw change from Carlos Felip, city director of planning services, stated that this proposal had come forward because of a single application from a private residence.
“We are strongly opposed to this change,” he said. “There is absolutely no need for this bylaw change. For the fact that we were never consulted about how this would affect our businesses, we are greatly offended.”
Edwards strongly urged council to reconsider and squash the proposed bylaw.
Warren Behan, a local resident, said as far as the zoning changes go, he was not sure what brought this on. He said for years, the existing bylaw has worked well.
Flora Walton, a homeowner, is a newcomer to Powell River. She said she wanted an R2 property, and now that it will be integrated into R1, it is creating problems. She has built a basement suite designed for a person with disabilities in her home.
“I’ve invested a fair amount of money to be here,” she said. “Is my suite in the basement now going to be considered a duplex?”
She said she has developed a legal suite. If her house goes to R1 zoning for a single dwelling, she wondered if her house would be grandfathered under the old bylaw.
“How are you going to go in and figure out who has a duplex and who doesn’t?”
CaroleAnn Leishman, of Agius Builders Ltd., said she was concerned about the change. She said Comox has many residential zones that are conducive to specific neighbourhoods.
“I’m concerned about the lack of public consultation,” she said. “I think only the developers became aware of it because a lot of the public doesn’t understand.”
In discussing Bylaw 2380, Jim Agius said he disagreed with the amendment to the definition of a duplex. He said the bylaw will have significant effect on the construction of mirror image duplexes in Powell River.
“It won’t discourage mirror image duplexes, it will eliminate them,” Agius said.
He commented that one of the greatest assets of this community is affordability of living.
“People move to Powell River because they can afford homes,” he said. “We should still have the opportunity to build mirror image homes.”
Edwards said the new bylaw proposes to have only one of the duplex units facing the front property line. He said if a duplex was to hypothetically be built on Joyce Avenue, only one of the units could be front-facing, meaning the construction of a driveway around the duplex to access the second unit.
“I strongly oppose this proposed definition of a duplex,” he said.
Leishman said she is an architectural designer and believes that duplexes can be designed to be aesthetically pleasing, even if the two units are basically a mirror image of each other. She said the proposed bylaw requires one unit to be 10 per cent larger than the other, so there’s a substantial increase in cost for the developer or homeowner for construction.
“We really don’t want to do that in this economy,” she said.
