City councillors got their first taste of what is expected to be a controversial round of public consultation on limiting the size of homes on protected agricultural land.
“Let’s be clear. Whatever we do, there will be people that aren’t happy,” said Coun. Linda McPhail, chair of the planning committee, which accepted a staff report Tuesday evening that sets out draft bylaws that bring Richmond in line with nearby municipalities.
Presently, Richmond does not limit the size of homes, other than allowing for a new home’s livable floor area to be no larger than 60 per cent of the lot size. As a result, mansions as large as 20,000-square-feet or more are being approved by city planners, who have no recourse to deny the building permits on the Agricultural Land Reserve.
“This is what the discussion is about; whether we want to move away from floor-area-ratio . . . The house can grow in size depending on how big the lot is,” explained Joe Erceg, Richmond’s manager of planning and development.
The committee heard from a number of land owners and developers who expressed various concerns.
“Don’t punish everyone because new people are building (large) houses,” said Gurdial Badh, who identified himself as a farmer and owner of 120 acres of blueberry fields.
Badh is also a realtor and recently applied to the city to subdivide a 20-acre parcel of farmland. The application was denied, as, according to the city, it would “result in lots with the potential for large single-family dwellings.”
Randy Shuette, president of Twin City Development Group, told committee he was a long-time resident planning to build a dream home for his family. He argued the value of his recently purchased farm lot in Richmond would be diminished by limiting house sizes. Schuette said he intends to farm the land with his four children.
One man named Ravinder told committee it was important to allow large homes for the purpose of housing multi-generational families, who have long farmed in Richmond.
Meanwhile, support for limiting the size of houses was also heard by committee.
“This is about soil. Grade A soil,” said Yvonne Bell.
Steveston resident Karin Biggs said she was of the opinion developers have controlled the decision-making on the matter.
“The tail is wagging the dog. The tail is the developers. The dog is you and us,” said Biggs.
Coun. Bill McNulty said the problem has flared up because “people have taken advantage of the goodwill of the city.”
He said some land owners have built big homes in good faith.
Coun. Carol Day said she was concerned about a flood of new building permit applications and called for an expedited bylaw to temporarily limit house sizes, prior to a planned round of public consultation this March. McPhail said planners are too busy to accommodate this immediately, so she directed staff to expedite the consultation process.
Day called on residents to show up at Monday’s Richmond city council meeting to speak to the bylaw proposals.
In 2010 the city attempted to restrict house sizes but council backed away after opposition from land owners and developers. Since then, an attempt by Metro Vancouver to impose a regional limit was denied in 2011. Over the past five years, many municipalities have enacted bylaws.
Those municipalities have generally mirrored guidelines from the Ministry of Agriculture, which has made clear to the city, via a letter last October, that powers to regulate the siting, size and location of homes on ALR parcels rests with local government.
Coun. Harold Steves said the city should adopt Delta’s bylaw, which limits homes to 3,552-square-feet on lots smaller than 20 acres.
The city loses tax revenue when the properties are classified as farms, not residential. And a report last September by Metro Vancouver has called the existing threshold for farming revenue to access the tax breaks too low.
