Following complaints voiced at a public hearing and a hundreds-strong petition, council has deferred making changes to some multi-family zone setback regulations in the municipality.
On Feb. 15, council voted unanimously in favour of removing several setback changes from its omnibus bylaw. Those setback changes are being sent back to staff for reconsideration.
Bylaw 鈥婲o. 2864, 2021 proposed a number of housekeeping measures but also intended to reduce setbacks for some single-family residential zones and some multi-family residential zones.
Council’s motion will remove the proposed reductions to required minimum setbacks for RM-1, RM-2 and RM-3 zones, which govern lands used for apartments, townhouses and duplexes, among other things.
That proposal, which has been deferred, was to reduce their required rear minimum setbacks to six metres, down from 9.15, representing a decrease of 35%.
However, council’s motion will retain proposed setback reductions for single-family and duplex lots — RS-1, RS-1A, RS-2 — that are 10.06 metres in width or narrower. In these cases, interior side setbacks will be reduced to 1.52 metres, down from 2.13 metres.
The motion also retained and gave third reading to the majority of the omnibus bylaw, which staff touted as a way to improve clarity, increase flexibility and address gaps in the existing zoning bylaw.
It represented a win for Wilson Crescent residents who campaigned against the proposal.
“It’s good,” Matty Walton, who started the petition, told The 樱桃视频 after the meeting. “Very happy that they’re listening to the community. The message was that the community doesn’t like that, and the community wants to be consulted, and they can certainly do things a different way to get the message out.”
However, the optimism was cautious.
Irene You, a Wilson Crescent resident, said she was concerned they’d have to re-argue against the setbacks again in the not-too-distant future.
About a dozen people were present in person at council chambers during the hearing, and 12 people — a mixture of in-person and online attendees — spoke during the meeting. There were also 63 pages of written correspondence attached to council’s agenda.
The written correspondence offered mixed feedback, but the majority of those who spoke in person or online during the hearing were against the proposed setback reductions.
Those against the reductions cited a lack of public engagement; issues with the transparency of the bylaw; decreased light, views and space, and a lack of privacy, among other things.
Stephanie Hewson, a Wilson Crescent resident, said that density should be well-designed to include natural elements, like greenspace, trees and natural light.
“If we try to solve sprawl by creating really dense neighbourhoods that don’t take nature into account, I think what we’re going to end up with is kind of sterile rows of townhomes, where there’s not enough light and space for things to grow,” said Hewson. “That, in my opinion, doesn’t solve the problem; it creates new problems.”
While the movement against the bylaw was led mainly by residents of Wilson Crescent, there were some from other neighbourhoods who showed support for their cause.
Della Halvorson of Brackendale said she wanted to speak up against the proposed setback changes.
“These amendments are being portrayed as insignificant and harmless, when, in fact, they could have huge ramifications on the livability of our neighbourhoods. And yet, the members of the community are barely given any notice on such an impactful change,” said Halvorson. “As elected officials, I thought that you considered decisions on how they affect current residents. However, it feels that at every turn, we are being pushed to the backburner in favour of developers.”
Devin Biln from the Garibaldi Estates said that the bylaw caught him off guard and should be deferred until it could be studied in more detail.
Not everyone was against the changes to setbacks, however.
Shoshana Kiidumae, a Northyards resident, said she didn’t know the answer to what the right amount of setback space should be, but noted smaller setbacks are not new in town.
“I just want to emphasize that I sent in a picture of the development that’s right behind my house that is 47 years old, and the setback behind that is very, very small,” said Kiidumae.
“It’s possibly even about four or five metres.... Forty-seven years ago, 樱桃视频allowed a townhouse development to be built on No Name Road with about 12 feet behind it.”
Coun. Armand Hurford, who proposed the motion, said more work needed to be done with communication.
“I think this is an appropriate course of action,” said Hurford. “I think there’s more work to do on engagement if nothing else. I don’t know if we’ll land in a different spot with these rear setbacks, but through this process, different pieces sort of clicked for me around how they interface with different side setbacks and different implications throughout the neighbourhood. And these seem to be the sticking points for the community.”
All of council was supportive of Hurford’s motion.
Coun. Doug Race noted staff provided comparisons between 樱桃视频and other communities, but the context is different.
“I think in the Lower Mainland, if you took a six-storey building, a lot of people down there would call it gentle density,” said Race. “But up in Squamish, I think it’s called a skyscraper. And so it’s just not quite the same situation.”
