Public Hearing Minutes - February 18, 2002

Richmond City Hall

6911 No. 3 Road

Councillor Linda Barnes

Councillor Lyn Greenhill

Councillor Evelina Halsey-Brandt

Councillor Rob Howard

Councillor Kiichi Kumagai

Councillor Bill McNulty

Councillor Harold Steves

David Weber, Acting City Clerk

(5640 Walton Road; Applicant: Westmark Developments Ltd.)

Mr. Brian Dagnault, Dagneault Planning Consultants Ltd., representative for Westmark Developments, provided a brief explanation of the rezoning application. The proposal was noted to: i) have been reduced from four lots to three, and ii) allow for the completion of Garrison Court.

It was Mr. Dagnaults opinion that the completion of Garrison Court should have been obvious to anyone purchasing property in the area. With the aid of a number of photographs, Mr. Dagnault provided information on the variety of lot sizes, frontages and house styles that exist on both sides of Garrison Court, and noted the wide disparity of property values in the area due to these factors.

Mr. Dagnault said that his client was prepared to i) register a design quality covenant, and ii) post a bond ensuring no variances to the proposed plan.

Mr. Dagnault said that the quality of design and finish details would ensure that property values would not suffer. He further stated that tasteful architecture would allow for the integration of the smaller homes into the existing neighbourhood and Mr. Dagnault provided photographs of how two adjacent high quality homes can present. Mr. Dagnault said that a designer had been retained to assess the architectural vernacular of the subject area and the resulting artists renderings were displayed.

Concern was expressed by Mr. Dagnault that his offer to meet with the concerned residents of the neighbourhood, and further to attend the neighbourhood meetings, had been unsuccessful. Mr. Dagnault read a letter submitted by Mr. Sam Samy, which is attached as Schedule 1 and forms a part of these minutes. In conclusion, Mr. Dagnault reviewed two property sales, one on each side of Garrison Court, with the note that it is a mistake to assume that smaller lots will equate to lower property values.

Mr. Daniel Jones, Campbell and Pound, property appraisers, provided information on the appraisal process that had resulted in the probable appraised value of the proposed lots/homes being placed at $430,000 to $450,000.

Mr. Dagnault said Mr. Jones information was presented in order to address the neighbourhood concern that inferior product and lot sizes would deflate the property values.

Schedule 5

Mr. Paul Pinkhasik, 6266 Garrison Court, provided the information that he is the adjacent property owner to the north side of the subject property. Mr. Pinkhasik reviewed the rezoning application thus far and displayed several photographs of existing area homes alongside a photograph of a similar sized home to the ones proposed. In response to an earlier comment by Mr. Dagnault, Mr. Pinkhasik said that a large number of area residents were opposed to the rezoning application and did not want to be swayed by further discussion

Ms. Pan then read the submission after which she said she took exception to the applicant saying that the owners of Garrison Court were being misrepresented and she asked all those in the gallery in disagreement with the proposed rezoning to stand.

Mr. Fung, 6171 Garrison Court, said he was strongly against the proposed rezoning due to his concern that the smaller homes would not blend with the existing homes in light of the 30% reduction in the maximum house frontages if the rezoning were approved. Mr. Fung also expressed his concerns pertaining to the effect the proposed rezoning would have on market values.

Mr. Kwok, 6155 Garrison Court, said he was opposed to the rezoning. Mr. Kwok said the subject property was situated at a 45 degree angle to his property and that he would suffer every day if he had to look at a two level home.

Mr. Chow, 6135 Garrison Court , said he wanted no change to the existing environment. Mr. Chow said he would not have paid as much money for his property if smaller houses were in his neighbourhood. Mr. Chow did not feel that the City should satisfy the developers desire to make more money at the expense of the existing residents.

Ms. Z. Bisken, 6266 Garrison Court, said that she had originally been opposed to the completion of Garrison Court. Ms. Bisken expressed her appreciation for the beautiful trees growing on the subject property and she would like the look of the neighbourhood preserved.

Ms. Leung, 6171 Garrison Court, said she did not want change in the neighbourhood. Ms. Leung was concerned that the completion of Garrison Court would make the street less safe for children. Ms. Leung did not want smaller lots as the reduced frontages were too big of a difference from the existing homes. Information was also provided that Mr. Pinkhasik had offered to purchase a portion of the subject property.

Mr. Dagnault, speaking for the second time, concurred that his client had had discussion with Mr. Pinkhasik regarding Mr. Pinkhasiks offer to purchase a portion of the subject property. Mr. Dagnault also said that Ms. Pan had declined his offer of a formal meeting with the applicant to discuss the proposed house designs and lot sizes.

In response to a question from Councillor Howard, Mr. Erceg provided information on the use of restrictive covenants.

In response to questions, Mr. Dagnault then provided an explanation on how design techniques could mitigate the difference in house sizes and frontages. Mr. Dagnault said he and his client would be willing to participate in a process whereby the neighbourhood would be consulted during the design process but he was also concerned that no design would be acceptable to all.

CARRIED

Opposed: Cllr. E. Halsey-Brandt

Cllr. Howard

CARRIED

Opposed: Cllr. Howard

(9051 and 9071 Beckwith Road; Applicant: 2784863 Canada Inc.)

CARRIED

(10571 Williams Road; Applicant: Baljinder Lally)

Mr. George Smith, 10451 Ainsworth Crescent, expressed a number of concerns relating to the drainage issues experienced in the area south of Williams and to the west of the Shell Road ditch, including i) capacity problems, ii) sewer backups, iii) manholes currently up to two feet below lane grade that are not raised during development, and iv) the increased runoff caused by the sandy material used to raise the grade in new developments. Mr. Smith said that proceeding with the current applications for rezoning along Williams Road would exacerbate an existing condition and that identification of the extent of the infrastructure deficiencies should happen first.

Joe Erceg, Manager, Development Applications, in response to questions, indicated that a memorandum had been circulated that outlined some of the sanitary sewer and drainage issues in the neighbourhood. The issues were found to be more acute than understood at the time of processing the rezoning applications. It was considered that, with the benefit of some minor improvements, the four applications being discussed for Williams Road, plus two applications to be heard at the March public hearing, could proceed without a major impact on the neighbourhood. Subsequently, a moratorium could be established during which further engineering modelling work could be accomplished.

The Manager, Engineering Planning, Paul Lee, said that staff recognized the problems in the area. Mr. Lee provided the information that the sanitary system had had operational improvements and that assessments of the hydraulic capacity of the drainage system were currently underway. Project Engineer, Sui Tse, said that $320,000 has been allotted for study and assessment of the area and that answers should be available within the next three to four months.

Mr. Smith concluded his comments by noting the helpful and satisfactory manner by which staff had responded to his questions and concerns.

Mr. Albert Drinovz, 11340 Seaton Road, said that he was concerned that two of the rezoning applications, for 10571 and 11671 Williams Road, did not have Development Permit signs in place. He questioned how many other applications might be in process without community knowledge. Mr. Drinovz also expressed concern with 1) the low grade of some properties, located between Shell Road and No. 5 Road, on Williams Road; 2) the increased lane traffic; 3) the increased burden on the existing infrastructure and schools; and, 4) that 33 foot lots would not blend well with the existing homes.

In response to a question from the Chair, Mr. Lally said that a Development Permit Application sign was indeed on his property.

Councillor Greenhill requested that staff confirm that signs were in place on the subject properties.

Mr. Archie Roberts, 10695 Aintree Place, said he has lived in his home for fourteen years and was subject to flooding twice a year due to the existing infrastructures inability to handle heavy rain during high tides. Mr. Roberts said he was not speaking against new development, however, increased development would increase the problems and cause additional, significant costs to the City. Mr. Roberts also said that staff were quick to respond to his complaints in a friendly and sympathetic manner.

a report on the drainage issues of the area which would include:

i)

information on the impact of fill required for new development;

ii)

the street elevations;

iii)

what development can take place without drainage implications;

iv)

a timeline in which the issues would be addressed.

CARRIED

(11191 and 11171 Williams Road; Applicant: International Earthcare)

That Zoning Amendment Bylaw 7314 be referred to staff for a report on the drainage issues of the area as outlined under the referral for Bylaw 7313 (Item 3 of these minutes).

CARRIED

(11231 Williams Road; Applicant: MCS Development Ltd.)

Mr. Rocky Sethi, developer, was concerned about the implications a prolonged study might have on development.

Mr. George Smith, 10451 Ainsworth Crescent, reiterated his comments made on Item 3, with the addition that more water could be expected on the properties backing on to the new developments due to the run-off from the elevated rear driveways and paved lanes.

That Zoning Amendment Bylaw 7317 be referred to staff for a report on the drainage issues of the area as outlined under the referral for Bylaw 7313 (Item 3 of these minutes).

CARRIED

(11671 Williams Road; Applicant: Unique Developments Ltd)

The applicant was present and acknowledged the lack of signage on the subject property and agreed to install the sign immediately.

That Zoning Amendment Bylaw 7318 be referred to staff for a report on the drainage issues of the area as outlined under the referral for Bylaw 7313 (Item 3 of these minutes).

CARRIED

(7980 Frobisher Drive and 4271 Blundell Road; Applicant: JAB Enterprises)

CARRIED

(Applicant: Scott Land and Lease Ltd.)

CARRIED

CARRIED