Kent Spencer
Province
Surrey City Council has been handed a 4,239-name petition seeking much larger houses on larger lots. RIC ERNST — THE PROVINCE
Surrey might be headed back to the monster-house era.
Council has accepted a staff recommendation to sound out the public about increasing the allowable floor area by about 25 per cent across the city.
The recommendation comes from a resident-driven initiative calling for maximum house sizes on 6,028-square-foot lots to jump from 3,550 square feet to 4,550.
“Mega-houses” of up to 6,500 square feet could also be built on “oversized” lots.
“Some negative public reaction of the potential for houses this size is probable,” said planning chief Jean Lamontagne in a report to council shortly before the summer break.
“It is clear the proposed modifications will have city-wide implications on all the 64,500 single-family lots in Surrey,” he said.
Despite council’s decision to proceed with staff’s recommendation, Mayor Dianne Watts said a return to monster homes is “not close at all.”
“We’re asking staff to have a look. We’re exploring this. Council has not made a decision,” Watts said.
“We will make sure the form of the house works into the character of the neighbourhood.”
Watts noted individual home sizes have already been capped in several neighbourhoods at about 2,500 square feet.
The debate was launched last year at the request of a group called the Surrey Ratepayers Association, which presented council with a 4,239-name petition.
The association wants increased house sizes to accommodate extended family members and for larger homes to be permitted on larger lots.
“We’re trying to accommodate real needs for extended families, affordable housing and easy daycare,” said association vice-president Kalvinder Bassi.
“Density should be much higher within the city core. More people should be within easy reach of amenities,” he said.
The association’s proposal was also meant to address 278 stop- work orders issued against homeowners for unauthorized construction during a three-year period. Many of them were in Whalley and Newton.
Bassi said “no one took out permission to fill in sundecks or patios” and, for a period of time, city enforcement was not strict.
“There are lots of safety concerns . . . People need big houses. Why not build them, right?” Bassi said.
If the measure was approved, many of the illegal additions would conform with the new rules.
But Watts said she would not condone illegal construction.
“We can’t have people breaking laws and going against safety issues,” she said.
Opponent Sandra Benz said the proposed changes “could adversely affect many areas of Surrey.”
“There needs to be more public consultation of the long-term benefits of bigger houses,” said Benz, an executive member of the South Westminster Ratepayers Association.
She argued that society is moving towards smaller human footprints, which conserve resources and are more efficient.
“So why are we going in a different direction in Surrey? This has to do with where we want to be as a city,” she said.
Coun. Bob Bose said the proposal is “a return to a position of overbuilt homes.”
“We’ve opened up a can of worms. What is a property for, if it’s covered with a house and no yard is left? The house casts shadows on other people’s gardens and they have no attractive place to live.
“Surrey brought in zoning laws to deal with mega-houses, beginning in 1988. There has been a push-back from people who were affected. I can’t see council retreating,” he said.
Public meetings will be held in five communities beginning in September. Staff will then issue a report with further recommendations.
© Copyright (c) The Province