In spite of objections from two neighbouring residents, City of Powell River Council has approved a development variance permit that would allow the maximum height of a neighbourhood’s residences to be extended.
At the February 4 city council meeting, councillors considered the development variance permit for Edgehill Crescent, that would vary the city’s zoning bylaw by relaxing RS1 lots, with maximum height restriction of a principal use building going from 7.5 metres to 8.5 or nine metres to the primary or uppermost roof ridge running parallel to the lot slope. The variance would also allow for relaxing the side setback for a principal building and an accessory building.
At the meeting, councillors received two emails from residents on Manson Avenue, objecting to the height variance. The letters stated the property owners did not want to see the height increased an additional one to 1.5 metres, citing privacy concerns.
Councillor Rob Southcott said regarding the height variance, his understanding was there was an initiative to change the orientation of the roofs, which may require the houses to have steeper roofs. He said the amendment was to allow for slightly higher, steeper roofs.
Mayor Dave Formosa said the concern of the letters wasn’t so much for the zero lot lines or setbacks but were addressing the height. He said he couldn’t see how that extra four feet on some of the houses’ roofs would affect the privacy of the other homes. He said the height extension would not be enough to create another level.
Southcott said the height extensions would not provide for another floor. He said the zoning was in compliance with the long-term vision for densification in the city.
Formosa said what he understands is that staff have the ability, when houses are built adjoining other properties, to go through a process and be careful to ensure privacy is cared for. Manager of planning services Jason Gow said that is correct.
According to a report from Gow, staff is supportive of the proposed variance in this case. He stated that Edgehill Crescent is a new, standalone neighbourhood and increase in height for the RS1 lots will have negligible impacts to existing properties along the northeast boundary of the subject lands. Gow’s report stated these adjacent properties front Manson Avenue and the principal use buildings are all at a great distance from their rear boundary.
Councillor George Doubt said he’d been watching the houses go up and it’s nice to see that neighborhood being constructed. He said the people who responded may be the only two residential properties that back on the small lots in Edgehill Crescent.
“My curiosity was if this change in height in the development variance permit would allow a taller building, and by that I mean would it allow one more floor than without the variance,” said Doubt.
“That’s my question. I think people are worried about the windows on an upper floor looking down into their backyards and removing their privacy. Does this allow for more floors on the building than might otherwise with the lower height?”
Gow said his understanding is that the variance would allow for a steeper pitch of roof, not another floor.
Councillor Jim Palm said he is not sure council is doing the right thing for existing landowners around that development.
“That is a concern of mine,” said Palm. “Having two letters come forward tells me it is a concern.”
The letters arrived the day of the council meeting and Palm said he wished he would have received earlier notice of the concerns so he could have looked at the situation firsthand.
“I have some grave concerns about these property owners off of Manson who could be impacted,” said Palm. “I’m just wondering for those people, whether we could talk to the developer about maybe waiving that height on that portion of their property. I’m worried about these residents being impacted.”
Doubt said he wished the letters had arrived earlier so council could have had more time to look around and think about the implications. He said he believes there will be some privacy lost because that many buildings cannot be put along the back fence without losing some. He said, however, he thinks the development is a good one. He said he believes it is an acceptable loss of privacy for other values the city is getting from the development.
“I’m of a mind to support it,” he said.
Councillor Cindy Elliott said having studied the proposed designs and purpose of the variance for height, the house itself is not proposed to be taller, only the roof.
“I don’t believe there is additional privacy lost as a result of the roof being put the other way,” said Elliott. “The concerns around privacy have more to do with density and the fact that the houses are going there. This variance won’t impact it one little bit.
“I’m comfortable supporting it because the proposed design is already allowed. There is no risk of additional privacy lost because they are switching the roof around.”
Palm asked about making the developers aware of the concerns of the two families. Gow said the city regularly does this.
“We want to make sure the developer is fully aware of any concerns,” said Gow. “We share that information.”
Formosa said what gives him comfort is a development permit needs to be done for each house and councillors heard that staff will be watching carefully for privacy issues on every development.
Council unanimously carried the development variance permit.
