West Vancouver mulls curbing monster homes
The District of West Vancouver is looking to regulate the size of giant houses.
Described in other Lower Mainland jurisdictions as “monster” or “mega” homes, huge dwellings have increasingly become a concern among West Vancouver residents.
“We’re talking houses that are two, three, four times the size of the typical house in the neighbourhood,” Chris Bishop, the city’s manager of development planning, told the Straight in a phone interview.
Bishop noted that in a number of cases, new homes are built measuring from 10,000 square feet to 18,000 square feet in neighbourhoods where older ones are 4,500 square feet at most.
“What staff are suggesting is, ‘Why don’t we, basically, put a cap on the size of a house?’ ” he said.
According to a staff recommendation, the floor area of a new single-family home should not exceed 150 percent of the size that would be permitted on the smallest lot in the zoning area where that house will be built.
The formula is contained in a report authored by Bishop, which will be the subject of a special meeting by West Vancouver council on Monday (February 23).
Bishop emphasized that in his report, home size is just one aspect of a suite of measures being eyed to address outstanding issues. The others relate to the siting of new construction, character, changes to ground grading, and landscaping.
“There is generally a feeling of loss of what West Vancouver represents,” the manager wrote.
In the interview, Bishop noted that one can still build a big house with the 150-percent threshold, but it’s not limitless.
“It doesn’t matter so much how much more land you have. It doesn’t result in a bigger house. You get a bigger yard but you don’t get a bigger house once you hit that ceiling,” Bishop said.
Bishop’s report seeks council’s approval for staff to engage the community about bylaw amendments with respect to single-family dwellings.
Comments
6 Comments
Too late
Feb 18, 2015 at 3:21pm
It would have been nice if Vancouver had considered this back in the early 90's, before so many neighbourhoods were destroyed by monster homes, and the loss of green space that went along with them. They were able to curtail the destruction of trees, but not the loss of yard space, that although is mainly grass, it's still better than asphalt.
Go up, not out.
Feb 19, 2015 at 12:45am
It's the footprint on the lot that matters. Why not allow 3-storey homes with a smaller footprint? That way, people can have the square footage they want without covering the lot completely.
Kim
Feb 19, 2015 at 9:15am
Going up is not a solution . It will destroy the lighting for adjacent homes . And in the first place why would some one need a home with 10,000 sq ft?
John Jacobs
Feb 20, 2015 at 5:32pm
I cannot believe this comment. Each area has zones RS1, RS2, RS3, RS4 , 5 etc.. each has has a restriction to the size of home that can be built above ground. That sq ft hasn't changed for 35 years. It's never been an issue until now. Why?
The sf above as I said hasn't been increased for 35 years. In the most effected areas such as Dundarave and Ambleside a limit exists on the maximum size of house you can build above ground. That is 2551 sf up to lot sizes of 7287 sf any thing over that is 35% build able floor area above ground. Most of the sq ft I would suggest what Chris is talking about cannot be seen. It 's in ground basementsf that is exempt from inclusion if it is built no more than 3' measured to the top of the main floor, out of the natural, unaltered ground.
If the Straight wants to represent a true and fair opinion of this storey then I would suggest it speak with the West vancouver Housing Association that is doing all it can, as a voluntary organization of home owners, architects, surveyors, builders, economists, builders etc. to present a true fair picture of of current trends in housing construction in West Vancouver.
Chris is deliberate in his use of emotive terms, as most are in trying to persuade others they are right. Monster homes is a great example. Yet ask a dozen people what a M'Monster home" is and you get 12 different answers. I'd really like Chris to pin point these homes and if they were such incredible monsters, which I actually doubt for the most part; why did they not do more to stop them? Are we not more intelligent than just sit back a soak this rubbish up? How many people are complaining as a proportion of our society? What is their demographic? Are we prepared to have everyone in the community suffer, as the consequence of one or two projects that may be should have been built better? Let's imagine for a minute you are an 82 year old widow who has owned her property for 30 -40 years. The house is old, hasn't been well maintained. She old and its expensive. She is thinking of moving into a care home in her community. That's expensive too. S what does Chris do. He devalues her home by several hundred thousand dollars by enforcing a buildable limit he thinks is appropriate. he doesn'ty consult with her. He doesn't ask the community what they think? He just does it. And over night that old lady now can't afford to move!
bobby green
Feb 20, 2015 at 5:45pm
You know the storey is so old. Trees homes character. Most of the homes built 40, 50 60 years ago really aren't that attractive. its the streets and the landscaping that covers them that tends to create a nice ambience. Our housing stocks are worn out, poorly maintained and sitting on very expensive dirt. Renovations are not for the most part economically viable so what does that realistically leave? Trees were planted on these lots at the same time 40, 50 , 60 years ago. They are now too big, the houses neighbouring them. If they came down in a storm like that in Stanley Park they would kill people. Add to that that many of them have been topped as a result are disease ridden or rotten why would you want to keep them unless you had no choice. But we do have a choice don't we? We can plant new ones can't we? we could also plant trees that are more likely to stay in scale with our homes, that because they are younger will do a much better jog of oxygenating ore carbon dioxide. can't we be more intelligent about our responses. If you build a new home and you remove trees you should have to provide a landscape plan with your development, (you don't have to currently), a you should plant new ones on your lot and possibly somewhere else in the lower mainland where they are required. Time to think out of the box people.
West Van Resident
Feb 20, 2015 at 7:58pm
How is this interview published at this stage is unbelievable? Who approves such PR? On Oct 20, 2014, council clearly requested for the planning department to seek thorough public opinion and input from the professional development community before finding options to fix a problem - assuming there is one. This whole proposal derived by the planning dept is a complete waste of tax dollars, as they have completely ignored councils direction!! This is a complete waste of time!! In the corporate world, you would need to spend much more time refining a problem statement (if one), doing options analysis, and then finding a solution. You can't rush these type of things! For some reason, planning is working backwards, first proposing a solution and then checking if they have a problem :) Clearly there must be a hidden agenda behind the planning department and some councillors - hence why this proposal has been hidden from the public until it was leaked! You won't get away this.. Instead, I really hope the few of you wake up sooner rather than later. This is political suicide! A career ending decision!
It's time to hire some brighter staff at the District! Ones that can understand you need empirical evidence before you can attempt to mention there is a problem! Cause without that your the only problem in the equation!! You are directly impacting the retirement fortunes of this old lady I am close to, and I hope you can at least comprehend that!!
All the best!