Public Consultation Summary

Transcription

1 Public Consultation Summary Open House on One-Family Residential (RS1) Zoning in Glenayre Lead Division: Planning September 2017 portmoody.ca/glenayre Public consultation details: Open House: September 25, 2017 Venue: Glenayre Community Centre # of attendees: 150+ # of Glenayre households: 485 How we collected feedback: Online survey # of surveys completed: 129 Paper survey Respondents self-identified their place of residence: 115 Live in Glenayre 11 Live outside Glenayre but in Port Moody 3 Did not identify Scope of the Consultation: Before making any changes regarding large homes in neighbourhoods zoned RS1 (One-Family Residential), Council directed staff to host a special public consultation meeting for Glenayre residents. Staff developed and presented a number of potential changes to the RS1 Zone including reducing the permitted height, coverage and floor area of new homes, restricting front yard fences, and increasing side yard setbacks and landscaping requirements. Key Findings: 73% of respondents agree with the Official Community Plan policy that states the neighbourhood character of Glenayre shall generally be retained. 79% of respondents feel that new homes in Glenayre are changing the character of the neighbourhood. Communication tactics: 57% think this is a negative change 23% think this is a positive change 20% are not sure Targeted print invitations Targeted invites Ads in the local newspaper Media release Posters in City facilities Display boards at event Project webpage & e-notifications Social media Respondents felt in general that new houses in Glenayre are: Too tall 26% disagree 67% agree Covering too much of the lot 60% agree 31% disagree Additional Notes While public consultation and survey results provide the City with valuable information, please note the views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of all Port Moody residents. Too close to neighbouring properties PROPERTY LINE 56% agree 33% disagree In need of more landscaping 32% disagree 36% agree

2 One-Family Residential (RS1) Zoning in Glenayre Survey Results Survey respondents were asked a series of questions around potential zoning changes in the Glenayre neighbourhood. The City measured responses using a five-tiered scale, ranging from very supportive to very opposed. The results are coded as follows: Very Supportive Somewhat Supportive Not Sure Somewhat Opposed Very Opposed Permitted Building Height: Respondents were asked if they support or oppose a reduction in the maximum permitted building height. 58% 11% 9% 21% 69% 30% Those who supported a height reduction indicated their preferred maximum building height as follows: Lower than 7.5 metres (24.6 feet, or the equivalent of two storeys 22% 7.5 metres (24.6 feet) 53% Between 7.5 and 10.5 metres (24.6 feet and 34.5 feet) 21% Not sure 4% Increase in Minimum Side-Yard Setback: Respondents were asked if they support or oppose an increase in the minimum side-yard setback. 35% 23% 4 % 11% 27% 58% 38% Those who supported a side-yard setback increase indicated their preferred minimum side-yard setback as follows: Between 1.5 and 3 metres (5 and 9.8 feet) 41% 3 metres (9.8 feet) 34% More than 3 metres (9.8 feet) 10% Not sure 15% 2

3 Setbacks for Second and/or Third Storeys: Respondents were asked if they support or oppose a requirement for second and/or third storeys to be set back further than the first storey. 31% 20% 20% 6% 23% 51% 29% Those who supported setbacks for second and/or third storeys indicated a preference for: Second and third storeys 41% Third storey only 28% Not sure 31% Permitted Site Coverage: Respondents were asked if they support or oppose a reduction in the permitted site coverage. 40% 15% 6% 8% 31% 55% 39% Those who supported reduced permitted site coverage indicated a preference for: Between 30% and 35% 55% Between 35% and 40% 29% Not sure 16% Floor Area Ratio: Respondents were asked if they support or oppose a reduction in the maximum Floor Area Ratio. 37% 18% 6% 10% 29% 55% 39% Those who supported a reduced Floor Area Ratio indicated their preferred maximum Floor Area Ratio as follows: Lower than % Between 0.4 and % Between 0.45 and % Not sure 23% 3

4 Very Supportive Somewhat Supportive Neutral Somewhat Opposed Very Opposed Changing FAR Calculation to Follow Industry Best Practices: Respondents were asked if they support or oppose making changes to the way FAR is calculated to follow industry best practices. 32% 24% 21% 9% 14% 56% 23% Those who supported calculating FAR to follow industry best practices indicated their preferred method as follows: Include items that contribute to building massing, such as indoor parking, cellars, furnace rooms, stairways, and bathrooms 44% Exclude items that typically do not contribute to building massing, such as basements 7% Include items that contribute to building massing and exclude items that typically do not 29% Not sure 20% Addition of Landscaping Requirements (trees, hedges, etc.) to provide privacy: Respondents were asked if they support or oppose the addition of landscaping (trees, hedges, etc.) requirements to provide privacy. 32% 34% 10% 9% 15% 66% 24% Respondents indicated that front-yard fences/walls should be: Prohibited 43% Allowed with restrictions (for example, maximum height restriction) 43% Allowed without restrictions 10% Not sure 4% 4

5 One-Family Residential (RS1) Zoning in Glenayre Survey Evaluation Survey respondents were asked about their Open House experience, and their opinions on the materials presented. The City measured responses using a five-tiered scale, ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree. A sample of results follows below, and are coded as follows: Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Not Sure Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree Survey Clarity Respondents were asked if the information in the survey was clear and understandable*. 48% 45% 4% 3% 93% * Zero respondents ansewered strongly opposed to this question. Opportunity to Share Views Respondents were asked if the survey provided them with an opportunity to share their views. 58% 31% 6% 3% 2% 89% 5% 5

6 One-Family Residential (RS1) Zoning in Glenayre Comments Survey respondents were asked do you have any additional comments?. Here are the responses received by the City. Comments are presented verbatim, including typos and grammatical errors. Specific addresses have been removed to protect the privacy of individual households. 1. I would like to see the City put in place a moratorium on building in the Glenayre neighbourhood until this issue can be carefully examined and feedback from the residents has been considered. Making a quick decision could create more problems than solutions. 2. I would like the City to put in place a bylaw with respect to fencing. 3. Do not include basements in the FAR if they are below ground. This would allow for a home owner to have 3 levels with only two above ground. 4. A comment regarding question 2, where it states that in the OCP the character of Glenayre shall generally be maintained should state shall be maintained. 5. Question 9 should have explained what industry best practices are. New homes are not in the character of the neighbourhood by any measure. While the majority of older homes follow the original covenants, the majority of new homes do anything but. I strongly suggest that the original covenants be included in the bylaw, as in general the residents follow them but builders and speculators coming into the neighbourhood do not. The covenants are there for the benefit of the neighbors, not outside parties. It is essential that the FAR include all building massing areas. A new home that I recently was invited to tour contained six bathrooms of which several were larger than the typical bedroom in neighbourhood homes. This adds a huge amount of floor area to a house and makes a mockery of FAR calculations. The low homes in this neighbourhood are one of the things that makes it friendly and inviting and walkable. The much taller new builds are walls that block views and sightlines throughout the neighbourhood and it is getting worse. New homes are taking full advantage of cheap LED lighting and have extensive outdoor lighting to call attention to themselves. The evening appearance of the neighbourhood is even more badly damaged then the daytime views. Many homes typically do not have blackout curtains but have been installing them to deal with the glare from neighbouring new homes. Given the proximity of the area to the new Evergreen extension and to Vancouver generally the area must be open to densification, and supporting housing that reflects the high value of the land. Trying to maintain the feel of a low density postwar neighbourhood with small houses on big lots in 2017 makes no sense, and is a backward way to view development! Most of the recently built new homes are nice looking and fit into the neighbourhood when you consider that home styles and sizes have changed since the 1950s and 60s. The majority of the homes have been built by the new homeowners for their own use and not for flipping (except for one home which was built on spec and did not look well made). Many of these very large homes have very large number of bathrooms and other utility space. There is one in Glenayre recently built that has 8 bathrooms - this adds an enormous amount of space that currently is not included in the building area - just in 8 bathrooms, you are easily looking at an extra 1000 square feet. This exclusion for bathrooms and other areas is rife for potential abuse, as was found with unfinished basements. If there was to be exclusion there should be a maximum - but truly these exclusions need to be removed. If they were to be removed on my current residence, I would have a floor area of 900 sq feet! Thank you for this opportunity - now, please may we stop this insanity immediately and become a true leader in conserving a community by restricting speculation and over building? I recommend a moratorium on new houses until this by-law can be adjusted to better suite and reflect the character of our Glenayre neighborhood. 6

7 One area that isnt mentioned here and is a large concern by glenayre residents as well as the set backs from the road and potential looming over existing properties, completely blocking sunlight, views and enjoyment of property. There should be some controls put on how far a property can stick out beyond existing properties and particularly with relation to privacy and blocking of light, creation of concrete walls. There should be opportunity for neighbours to raise concerns of light, views, exposure and privacy blockages and have appropriate changes made, just like many other parts of the world. Why should some huge building turn my backyard into a blocked out shady unusable piece of land, where nothing can grow, just because they want 8 bathrooms! Glenayre has an opportunity to be a unique desirable place in Metrovan where neighbours are not petrified of whatever is being built next and having a splintered community. The charm of the neighbourhood is the community feel and the working class nature of it, and how people live outside in the neighbourhood. Monster homes do not add any charm or liveability as they pit neighbour against neighbour or developer, who is not invested in the community. We shouldnt be resigned to change, we should direct the change and keep this as special as it is with people who care about the community and live here. Finally - please note there was strong support at the meeting for a moratorium on building approvals until this is sorted out, otherwise the abuse will hasten. Suddenly there are multiple buildings being torn down and huge things being built - the pace has picked up and we are in danger of losing the community - one of the few TRUE neighbourhood communities left in the lower mainland. It is why so many of us still live here even though jobs and kids would mean we should move somewhere else, but we know from people who have moved out that they regret the move as the community is not the same. PLEASE PLEASE show some courage and expedite - the slow timelines is destroying what we have left. Lets not become like all the other cities where communities have died. I can only recall one house sold in Glenayre in the past 3 years to someone who actually lives here - all the rest bought were by builders, realtors and speculators. Time to put in some restrictions to enable the community to survive and have people invested into the community, not just the dirt and a giant box on top. I am also very concerned that builders and speculators investors may inundate this feedback form with pro development. How will that be controlled to ensure external vested interests do not lie on this feedback form? Also extremely disappointed that not one council member or the mayor took time away in the evening from UBCM to even bother coming to a glenayre meeting - that shows there is lack of understanding of what is going on and the high degree of importance that residents view this. 1. Our family DOES NOT SUPPORT creative infill options for Glenayre. 2. Our family STRONGLY SUPPORTS an immediate moratorium on new development applications. 3. Sight Lines need to be addressed restricting windows. 4. NO 3 stories. 5. If OCP says retain the character of Glenayre why are development permits being allowed for the monster houses we are seeing being built. A moratorium should be put in place immediately so that houses just sold recently can not apply for the old permits if the new by-law comes in. I would like to see stricter rules on variances as it seems people just go and get a variance and build what they want. We need some bylaws that enforce the original agreement when Glenayre was originally built. The poster child for how a builder can adversely affect the feel and livability is the McMansion built at XX. This building demonstrates the weaknesses in the present building code. Why are 8 foot tall fences allowed and why do the extend into the front yard? This home was built for profit and not livability! The quality of life for the neighbors has been adversely affected and city hall bears a lot of the responsibility for allowing this to happen. SHAME! 7

8 I moved to Glenaye in It has been an ideal place to call home: a community with well-built houses and friendly people, self-contained, quiet, and, in a word, neighbourly. For the first years that I was here the neighbourhood evolved, and there was modest reconstruction and renovations of homes: a couple of bungalows on our street were raised to 2-story homes, a house was replaced by a somewhat larger house, and we added a room to our house, going from about 1150 sq ft to just over 1300 sq ft. In all this, the character of the neighbourhood was maintained. This has changed with the advent of monster houses. With these buildings, there is no concern about the impact on neighbours and there is no attempt fit in with the existing community. In my (admittedly limited) experience, in virtually all cases, the motive is profit. Some examples: for the house behind us (at X and X), the owner told a real estate agent and the current tenants that he had no intention of moving in; a house down the street to the east seems to be inhabited by students; and another at X and X was sold right after construction and has since been re-sold. Worst of all, it seems that there are developers that come in, buy a smaller house, pull it down, put up a monster, sell it, and move on to the next. (This can be seen to be going on now on X and X). There is no social conscience and no recognition that a community is being degraded; there is only the drive to make a fast buck. A bylaw to preserve the character of established neighbourhoods and to limit the size of new houses is desperately needed. The community is great however without houses with culture we will have nothing but boxes. We need things that contribute to the overall feel of the area. Larger then what we have is not the problem, the problem is that we have no plan going on. Question 9 I would like FAR calculations to include basements. Fence heights whether the neighbour s backyard or resident s front-yard should not impact site lines. First of all, I believe that the sudden changes towards the zoning changes are preposterous. For recent home buyers, including my family, we bought the homes such that we can build a bigger home to accommodate a larger family. The port moody city hall is saying that with new home constructions, they are changing the characteristics of the neighbourhood. My question to the city hall is, who is to set the standards of preserving neighbourhood characteristics? Is there a set law saying that a neighbourhood has to look a certain way? Even in other cities such as Langley, there are huge constructions going on at the moment. However, it is not destructing the neighbourhoods. Instead, a lot of realtors and home owners actually enjoy the recent changes because it is brining in more characteristics and more residents into the neighbourhood. If recent home buyers knew of the possible changes in the reduction of lot coverage...etc, they would have not purchased a home in Glenayre. Even for my family, we bought our home so that we can build upon the home to accommodate our growing family. This is not a might but a must, and I will do everything in my power to put a petition forward about these possible changes. As individuals who own our own properties, I believe that we should be able to do what we want with our land. Just by making our homes bigger does not mean that we are harming the neighbours. We are building our own homes in our properties, not the neighbour s properties. I think a moratorium should be put on all new building permit applications until this consultation is complete and any new house should have to comply with the outcome of this consultation, regardless of them applying for the permit before the changes are made The single most important reason that I chose to move to Glenayre about 25 years ago is that the smaller houses and open front yards appealed to me aesthetically. I thought it was charming! The house- and lot-sizes fit with my worldview/ principles of wanting to live in a relatively small space (for a single-family home, of course, as opposed to in Anmore or on Westwood Plateau). Glenayre houses are being torn down at an alarming rate now, and being replaced by over-sized houses that loom over the rest of us and maximize the profit for the builder. Without exception, in my experience, the builder - after forever destroying the charm of our neighbourhood - sells up and moves off to wreak destruction elsewhere, sometimes just down the block. These people are never part of the community; they are here to make a buck and then move on. But for the rest of us, this is OUR HOME. 8

9 1. Please do not reduce the FAR. Some small lots like 6500 sq ft will be limited to less than the ranchers with basement they already have. This is not productive. This is basically saying - Sorry, fellows, you forget about your house ever being redeveloped. Big lots on the other hand will also lose building and re-sale value of about 200$/sq.ft. that is the difference between cost of construction and sale price of new houses. Example - on a 10,000sq ft lot it will mean $200,000 loss. Please do not single out Glenayre compared to the other parts of town for this unfair punishment. Just do not change the FAR to lower than the City-wide RS-1. City is allowing some lots to stay RS-1, some lots are allowed to go to 70% and split-subdivide, the whole Lower Mainland is making gentle densification, and the Glenayre is working against all the contemporary trends. 2. Height restrictions as proposed are too low. A normal contemporary house shall have main floor 2-3 to 5ft above ground and 9-10 ceilings, plus when you add the structure, that ends up at 27 and 32 which is close to the current limit Citywide, please do not change that. The 6m proposed flat roof change will mean for houses with flat roofs only 8 ceilings and slab on grade or a step higher. This kills the potential of the land. Please keep the City-wide RS1 fairness. If this is accepted, only dwarf houses would be allowed. 3. Side yards. Please do not limit the side yards to be anything different than 1.5m, maximum we shall be looking at is 10% of the lot width or 1.5m whichever is greater. Note that 3m side yards will cut one garage from the houses, or one room from the front face - like living or office on the first floor. Some small lots like 50-to 55 will basically end up with an entry door and two car garage, like a tiny little townhouse, then the side yards that are junk filled usually anyways, will become bigger junkyards. That will also push the FAR [whatever it ends up being] to transfer this area cut from the sides to the back, thus in effect killing the backyard by cutting 3m from it. Big Backyards are such a beautiful feature in Glenayre, not deserving to be killed because we allow for gigantic useless dark and ugly side yards. Also big side yards will open windows to the sides and this is something Glenayre residents specifically did not want, apart from the fact that they will look onto the neighbours junk and a blind side facades of the house only 1.5m away. 4. General sense of unfairness - why would the Glenayre be treated differently? The City has an RS-1 zoning and this needs to be enforced and maybe some tightening changes made and the result will be fair for all houses in Port Moody RS-1 lots. Examples: 4.1. Limit the double height volumes to 3.6m and count double area for the volume above Enforce unprotected openings on the side yards. Currently this is not rigorously enforced and may new houses violate BC Building Code Count the entire area of the house in the FAR, but exclude 40m2 for a garage Exclude basements from the FAR, but only if the floor above basements is 4 above ground or less. One may argue that since some residents complain, the City shall hear them and limit their neighbors to not build houses otherwise allowed in Port Moody. This is unfair. If there is a by-law, it shall be equal to all. City only seems to hear people opposed to the bigger houses because these people make noise. The people who do not oppose the current rules do not make noise and they are not taken into consideration. In order for such drastic changes to be implemented, it would be fair for the City to ask individually each one of the house owners and if 50% or more votes are collected, only then to implement changes. And the new houses that are already built shall be automatically counted against the change. Another issue is the call for a freeze on new projects that we heard on the open house. This would be illegal as the owners who had spent tens of thousands of dollars to prepare plans did not do anything illegal and will suffer undue hardship. They will also lose from the future re-sale value hundreds of thousands, and they will require this change to be fair and properly prepared and announced in advance. Please do not implement these changes and do not impose s freeze. community plan policy statement that neighborhood character shall generally be retained is to wide open for interpretation. variances to the bylaws are too easily attained.the good neighbor policy has no weight and is easily ignored. The sewer system in Glenayre cannot handle larger homes with multiple bathrooms and needs a total rebuild. Front yard space needs to be retained to avoid building overlaps and look of neighborhood. I have lived in Glenayre for 30 years, some of the new houses fit in well, while others are a total disaster and eyesore. change policy to must fit in with the character of the neighborhood. Thank you for letting residents voice their opinions, I hope we are heard and that the greed of developers with political ties do not win out. can t say I really understand and have delved into the FAR calculations etc but it appears that there is always a loop hole that is found or variances approved then lead to these large houses. Want those not to happen. 9

10 I have previously filled out a questionnaire, during the public forum held at Glenayre Community Centre. Therefore I did not answer the survey. At the forum there were no minutes taken. One resident suggested that there should be a moratorium on any permits for new house construction until this issue is resolved. I agree with this and would also say that the given direction within the existing bylaw should be sufficient for the Engineering department to deny the construction of three story structures in Glenayre no matter the height. If this is not possible, Council should address this with a moratorium on any permits until the bylaw is amended. My Thoughts are the majority of people who are appose to newer larger homes are between the ages of 50 to 60 and have no plans to build a new home in the future. I m 33years old and have lived my entire life in Glenayre, I bought a house around the corner from my parents in 2011 and now my wife and I are raising two little boys and thinking of trying for a third to add to our family. The problem with our home now is even thou we have spent over $400K on renovations we feel it s not big enough and still dream of building our own home someday. I know many friends of mine are also looking at building new homes and have the money to do so but my generation want s the big house and dose not want more trees and bushes to maintain. If these changes are brought in the old single level ranchers will not be torn down, in twenty-thirty years they will be ugly dilapidated homes and everyone who voted for these rules will be long gone. So in closing I say get with the times because this is called progress and my generation dose not need 20feet between our homes. Last, but maybe not least, with so many houses losing so much in re-sale value, will the City reduce their property taxes by 1/4, or compensate them, or agree to collect less in permitting services fees, or stand a class action lawsuit? It is very easy to market-prove how much the losses will be, and this times the number of affected houses, plus future loss of City taxes as the houses will be cheaper, why do this unfair change to begin with? I am a professional architect and can tell you that whatever is this proposed change, it is completely out of context to everything that happens in a modern, sustainable, densifying city. Please do not make anything different that the Citywide RS-1, tighten the RS-1 and enforce it! I think that FAR might be adjusted more for some of the bigger lots as they allow for really large houses under current bylaws. Height restrictions seem to me to be the most logical place to start as many of the new houses have very tall ceilings which contribute to their height. Some also have multiple indoor garages that I am not sure are included in the FAR but contribute to their large footprint. Only couples of these new houses with flat roofs-design doesn t fit into our neighbourhood, others are not bad at all. City should carefully review the design before giving out a permit. Nobody can foresee the future, reduction of the maximum site coverage might result the devaluation of our property value. Besides some of these new houses weren t built by new comers, some of them are long time residents. Their children grow up, move back home, need more space, I think we should accept their needs and higher density living since Port Moody is a very little city. We are too busy putting limits on others, but forget these bylaws also limit our own expansion. I worry that the reduction of the of maximum site coverage will have a negative impact on our land value. Three new houses have already been built on my street (XX), one sits next to mine. That means these new building bylaws will not apply to them. At least two of these big houses sit on the exact same size lots as mine, locate on the same street, potential future buyers will willingly pay more to buy their lands for more square footage that they can built or alter, but not mine. It isn t right! A good house design is very important and will blend in our community. Only if house front set back is restricted, each houses would sit roughly at the same location, the beautiful garden like-street view can be preserved. By not changing the skyline or blocking the view of neighbours, perhaps we should let them digging down to the ground or expanding to backyard to make more living spaces. Privacy landscape might create more problems, it might also block the sun, create more work for older, long time residents like me. 10

11 Re fencing: There is absolutely no reason why The City cannot adopt an original covenant as a City by-law. After adoption the city has the authority to enforce, change and/or improve this by-law. I do have little confidence in these meetings and surveys as over the years the issues remained the same without any of the suggested changes considered or implemented. I am still hoping that at least after one meeting and survey the results are acted upon. I understand that some people like Glenayre the way it is and don t want it to change, but as the presentation says it was built about 60 years ago. It is now 2017! Just in the last 20 years, Port Moody and the whole Lower Mainland have changed dramatically. Glenayre should keep in pace with the time and stop living in the past! Houses that are built now should still be relevant after another 60 years. Introducing FAR reduction for Glenayre would be oversimplifying the problem. It is not the allowed area alone, but rather the areas unaccounted for under the current bylaw that cause the recent massive houses, to name the lack of restrictions for garages and double height spaces among others. Not all lots in the neighbourhood are equally big. The reduced FAR combined with the further RS1 restrictions would cripple the potential for future development. Reducing the FAR would also limit the potential for legal secondary suites for the smaller lots. The proposed increasing of the side yards from 1.5m to 3m would result in pushing the allowable area, whatever it is, to the back thus cutting from the back yard, which is the hallmark of our neighbourhood. It would also eliminate the potential for a double garage for the narrower lots thus turning the streets into parking lots. Keeping the side yards of 1.5m would help to preserve the neighbourhood s character. RS1-G density reductions in a time of gentle density increases in the whole city would be unfair governance. Not to mention that the proposed RS1-G zoning would not just perceivably, but in reality reduce the lot values by a significant amount. As a Glenayre home owner and a professional with years of experience in house design, I strongly oppose such measures. In this consideration, I believe that new RS1 rules, with fixed holes in the current bylaw should be absolutely enough to address the issues and make the volumes of new buildings fit harmoniously within the fabric of the existing neighborhoods citywide. Meanwhile it would be of great benefit for the city if more architects, planners and designers are involved in the process. 1. Do not change FAR some small lots 6600 s.f. will be limited to only 2640 of area. In effect rancher with basement. They already have that. This kills their potential. 2. Side yards increase will push the area to eat the backyard. Do not change side yards. Killing beautiful and big backyards for the bigger side junkyards in changing the neighbourhood beauty. 3. Some lots are narrow, like 45. Bigger side yards will turn them into just narrow house with an extra door and double garage on Level 1 and nothing else. There must be differentiation for smaller and narrower lots. Please put a moratorium on new development. Permits in Glenayre until such time that the existing council can pass the new by-laws on building restrictions in Glenayre. We should enforce the bylaws already in place. We need provisions for off street parking. Bring design elements from the original subdivision plan to the RSI Zoning. I would like to know what the restrictions would have on values. I strongly suggest more information and public consultation before changes are made. Please consider enacting a moratorium on future builds until the new bylaws are finalizes. I don t want the character of our great neighbourhood to change. One of the reasons we moved here was the look of the neighbourhood. Thanks. Expedite the process. Include front yard setback to confirm to other houses in the neighbourhood Land value/extracting value from homes drives a lot of the McMansions. Can we look at alternatives vs. the monolithic box? Especially ones that contribute to house...we are 15 min walk to skytrain. eg: carriage homes, duplex, subdivided lots, secondary structures for pedetrain. I support reducing monolithic McMansion sizes, but would like to see other options for infill. 11

12 Moratorium please. Moratorium on building permit ASAP. Maybe allow for, but with lower height restrictions (2storeys) or do 3.5 with a 2.5 storeys. If you increase side setbacks then you impose upon front and rear. There typically less windows on the side but privacy is greatly affected when you build deep into a backyard. More parking is required. There are so many cars parked on the streets it s becoming unsafe. We want to keep our land values up so we have to be flexible in order to replace the older run-down homes with tasteful homes. Builders need to build as many sq ft as possible so I don t mind the higher far, but keep the height down. I live next door to one of the more imposing new homes and have absolutely zero privacy in my backyard. Landscaping back and sides need to be addressed. 37 Years here! I strongly suggest a moratorium be placed on all permit applications, pre-demo building and that plans are subject to change based on Council s decisions. Larger homes often mean that extended family are living together, supporting each other, providing child care, elder care, sharing resources. Why would you want to discourage that? Would it be better for the environment or economy if families lived apart? I would argue the opposite. Smacks of racism to me, as non-western cultures often have large homes to accommodate extended family. I was so disappointed to see this come through from the city I live in. I answered not sure to changing the character of Glenayre because what does that even mean? The character? They re not beautiful character homes that we re trying to protect here. This is about what people don t want, not what they want. It s about pushing a group of people out of a neighbourhood. Maybe when people find out that new rules will drive down their property value they ll change their tune. Fence heights should have restrictions. Front yard lower 3 maximum, rear yards 6. Presently fences are not restricted and fences/retaining walls are popping up 12 high. Not very neighbourly. Front setbacks need to be that new house is kept in the same plane as existing houses on street. Port Moody Council and Mayer must enact a Moratorium. Concerns have been voiced in our community since We do not feel that our community is being heard! Firs things first, of course, but I do think we need to look ahead to the future: single family lots do not adequately address the rapidly growing needs of the Greater Vancouver population. Someone mentioned an idea of a moratorium on new building permits until new rules can be discussed/voted on. Great idea. Please stop issuing new permits now and have any future applications be restricted to new rules. Great presentation. Thank you for holding the meeting. Also, I see homes being sold and demolished but they are not in bad shape. Such a shame. Moratorium on Building Applications until this is resolved. Can the storm and sewers handle the excess roof run-off and multiple bathrooms from mega homes? In recent years many high rises have been developed near Glenayre area. We think new changes to the neighbourhoods are inevitable. Glenayre is no exception and we believe more restrictions (in addition to typical restrictions in Metro Vancouver) will damage the neighbourhood in the long run. We think the city should come up with new ideas such as allowing for duplex in order to avoid very big houses. City should promote higher density (gradually) to provide more affordable housing to younger families. City should do a study on any restrictions in terms of property value, demographics, etc before applying. New restrictions may reduce our property value and they will destroy our hard earned investment for younger families like us who have very big mortgages. New restrictions are not fair and will destroy our future. Thank You. Please place an immediate moratorium on all new applications for development in Glenayre. Front set-back should be closely matched with existing neighbours and homes on that street. No fence shall exceed 5 feet. Site coverage should be no more than 30%. Our family has been living in Glenayre since 1960 and would like to preserve it s unique environment. 12

13 The new houses being built are maximized for profit and will greatly diminish the livability of Glenayre. We know our neighbours and interact with them on a regular basis. We enjoy our privacy in our backyard and like our garden. The monster homes block the sun and remove our privacy. I would like to see council adhere to the original guidelines that were used when Glenayre was fir built. ACT NOW!!!! Thank You New homes should blend into the current neighbourhood. Homes should be limited to a 2 floors. 7.5 meters to peak at highest point. Landscaping should be mandatory. Landscape not to include driveways but shrubs, trees and attractive fencing (low level). **A moratorium should be in place immediately! Before Glenayre loses it s charm, we can not undo what will be done while we await Councils decision. Ensure that fence building is monitored to ensure that high fences are subject to neighbours comments. A 12 fence should have a building permit if not, tear it down! Why do we need new regulations? Old ones should still be workable (eg: terra height) Old rules can be adopted by council and adopted. Restrict sign lines. This is a privacy issue (eg: where windows are located). Every time there is one of these meetings, the topics are the same. Does anything ever happen? 1. Move quickly on this! Many houses are being sold here and buyers may try to move quickly to get their building in now before new regulations come in. 2. For now, have a moratorium on building until these decisions are made 3. Tell us what?? to value of property happens (in the past) with restrictions as described here, in other areas No front fences. Don t want to look like Surrey Rather than adding restrictions because a few community members prefer to live in houses that require extensive renovations, we should be promoting higher efficient houses with character that adds to the neighborhood. Promote sustainable development, that maximizes the lot size, (example allow laneway houses) rather than limit the size of a house on a large lot because someone in a neighbor is happy with their pre 1970 bungalow that has a wood burning stove and smogs the entire neighborhood everytime they turn it on. Unfortunately a number of houses (28) have been allowed to build, to current RS1. Making changes now, will have a negative economic impact to the value of my property. I oppose any changes that will restrict my ability to maximzize the full potential of my property. Proposed changes now would be unfair, for those who may have plans to renovate or rebuild in the future and should be afforded the same opportunity as those who chose build newer homes recently. I appreciate the opportunity to provide feedback, but am concerned as to how you monitor/prevent multiple submissions by developers or feedback from individuals not residing in the Glenayre area. I think there should be an immediate moratorium on issuing permits for buildings until council has made a decision on these proposed changes Many older homes in Glenayre have a box look, and if a developer wants to tear down and build a larger more attracted house then that is good for all of Glenayre. As long as plans are submitted for approval. There is obviously a demand for larger homes. Unfortunately, the current lots are too small to accommodate large homes and still leave a decent yard space for the children living there to grow up and play in. The I would never own a home that does not have a yard because I think that is why many people choose to move to the suburbs, to have a yard and more space to live in. But, I do not think it is my place, nor the cities to dictate what they can or cannot do with there home. The current guidelines seem adequate to keep 95% of homes being built from being unsightly or intrusive on their neighbors, and that is the only concern we should have as a city. It seems unfair to introduce more restrictive bylaws to penalize future home owners so they cannot have what their next door neighbor has simply because he got it before the city decided to get involved. 13

14 I have already sent a comment regarding consideration of suite parking for new homes that are built. Since our streets are lacking sidewalks it will become a significant problem if this is not addressed and will be unsafe for people walking, riding, along the street as cars will be parked on both sides, limiting visibility and reducing the passage to one lane. New homes should be built to accommodate on site parking for the homeowner and any tenants. Already, Glenayre streets - XX in particular are already showing regular parking on both sides of the street due to tenants and owners parking on the street due to insufficient parking in the driveway of the home. One would hope that it would cause drivers to keep to the 30 km speed limit due to the reduced driving space - however this does not seem to be the case so far. It really seems to be an accident waiting to happen. I agree having a moratorium on future permits until the council meet in November. I like new homes in the neighborhood however they should fit in with original homes, not overshadow them. If the FAR calculation is NOT changed to follow industry best practices, then the maximum FAR should definitely be reduced. I m in support of landscaping requirements if the side-yard setback allows for it. The current 1.5 metres does not really support the planting of trees as the branches and roots extend too close to the house and the storm drain system. I am concerned with the way this survey is being collected. I am a resident in Glenayre and passionate about the outcome of this hearing. I am concerned because I have just filled out a second survey and there is no identification requirement or tracking from your end on how many surveys have been submitted by a single individual thus letting one person submit unlimited amount of surveys which will then be reviewed by your team and could be construed as the opinions of multiple individuals. if decisions are made on the basis of the feedback received from this survey then you need to take measures to ensure that only surveys from residents of this neighbourhood count and that only two surveys per home can be submitted so the feedback is measured and fair based on all individuals in the neighbourhood and not just one passionate individual that submits 50 surveys on their own. Also, I strongly oppose insreasing side yard set backs as that will result in homes being built deeper into their lots limiting the back yard and privacy to the back neighbour. The city of Port Moody already has sufficient byelaws outlining building regulations and restrictions that allow homeowners flexibility when building to suit the needs of their family without overreaching Property boundaries that take away from their neighbours right to enjoy their own property. City of Port Moody has sufficient bylaws already in place. These massive homes are ruining the feel of our wonderful community. I think some of the designs make some homes look more massive than what they are with roof lines, etc. Also the height of the ceilings add to the tallness of the homes which tower over others. Ceiling height could be brought down. This really needs to be addressed NOW before others are built. Thank you. We realize that with property pricing larger homes are a necessity - basement suites are often needed for young people to be able to move in afford their mortgage. Glenayre is unique with no fences in the front yards. Neighbors get to know each other by talking face to face and can keep an eye on each other (providing extra security). No back lanes require most activity to be out in the front. The front yards provides open site lines down the street. Do not mind 3 stories provided the ceiling heights are of reasonable height - 12 or 15 foot ceilings make the houses too tall and those houses should be on a larger lots than what is provided in Glenayre. People have moved into Glenayre because they like the unique neighborhood and this should be retained as much as possible. Please amend RS1 for Glenayre without delay as there are new houses being built monthly and the neighbourhood character change has become very rapid yet irreversible. Prohibit front brick walls with gates, and high front fences, all home should appear open and welcoming like all the other homes on the street. 14

15 OCP shall generally be retained...generally too vague. Moratorium...must happen in order to protect the neighbors of homes that are being sandwiched between 2 new large builds. The developer/builder will rush the projects to install front (lg) fences, full height and site coverages. Please! Glenayre is a community that is very different. Families raise children here and a lot of those children buy homes here because of the uniqueness of Glenaye. It is so sad when an outside developer comes in and has the rights to make such drastic changes to the property that has such a negitive impact on the neighbour. This is a VERY neighbourly neighbourhood...please let s try to keep it that way working together with the city to ensure the Glenayre charm for the next generation. BIG isn t always the best! Thank you for taking the time to listen to our concerns! Densification is part of the community plan for the entire surrounding area in both Burnaby and Coquitlam. Port Moody has already allowed this to happen in Glenayre. Attempting to stop it now is akin to limiting the potential future values on those houses that have not been removed and replaced with larger more modern homes designed for this densification. A legal challenge would also likely prove in favour of those opposed to this proposed by-law change as the precedent has already been set. Have some of the good neighbour guidelines be laws do to the fact that many people today are choice not to follow the guidelines. I feel encroachment onto the Road Allowance and Boulevards of gardens,walls, rocks,sheds and temporary carports (etc) should be strictly controlled to maintain good visibility and access for pedestrians to get off the road if necessary... this at present in Glenayre has become a real problem and in some cases a real eye sore. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to express our desire to retain the character of our community. We love Glenayre for the winding streets, pathways between houses, open front yards and friendly people. We know each other and look out for each other! The new larger homes overshadow their neighbours and those with walls and fences across the front ruin the friendly look of the neighbourhood. In general I support my neighbours efforts to protect architectural integrity and to modernize the rules to help do that. However, being the owner of a pan handle lot, I am slightly concerned that rules which make sense for 99% of the lots may impinge on my lot in an unintended but unfair way, in particular, side yard setbacks. My property lines are shared with 9 (!) other properties. All but one back onto my lot, meaning, what is a side yard for me is a back yard for the neighbour. The logic of increasing the side yard setback makes perfect sense to me when two properties share side yards, but less so when it s like my situation. If I were to want to rebuild on my property, I would hope there is a mechanism for exceptions that make sense (if needed). I believe that the neighborhood s character is being threatened by these mega-homes, and by building such large homes, are pricing people out of the neighborhoods. I want my family to grow in an area with a neighborhood-feel and a sense of community. When these large homes are sold at high prices, only the incredibly rich can afford to live here. I d like to keep Port Moody accessible for people. I live in Suterbrook Village, and I feel like my dream of growing a family and staying in Port Moody is becoming more and more of a pipe-dream at this point. I call upon City Council to establish a moratorium on approvals until such time as new zoning regulations are in place. Also, please note that question 5a (Side-Yard Setback) is worded incorrectly. The wording has been copied from 4a, but that wording does not correlate with the question. The handout received at the Glenayre community meeting on Sept 25 contains the proper wording. Thanks! Thank-you for holding the open house and collecting this feedback! If it s likely to take longer than November for RS1 updates to be enacted, I think we should have a moratorium on new building permits until such time as the new bylaws are ready. I don t think homes are generally built with unfinished basements anymore - basement area should definitely be included! It would be good to know what has happened to property values in other jurisdictions where such restrictions were brought in. 15