Editor:
Re: Loss of Burnaby view thanks to ginormous house ‘broke our hearts’, NOW Opinion
One might expect that buying a home in Burnaby, some of the most expensive in all of Canada, would encourage a major due diligence effort prior to purchase. As well, Burnaby residents are fully entitled by provincial law to engage council before permanent changes are made to housing policy.
So when we hear complaints of perfectly legitimate construction that changes visual access to the public sphere, did any of these homeowners previously show up at council to advocate for a freeze in housing policy that would forever lock-in the current housing stock. Of course, such a public position should rightly be rejected by all Burnaby residents as undermining the future of our community.
For example, I live in North Burnaby directly in-line with the tall towers going up around Brentwood. My views are starting to be affected.
In the distance, we will eventually lose all of the southern Gulf Islands, and in winter the sun in the low southwest horizon. Should my view be protected too? Just because construction is not immediately next door makes my case no different than the two recent complaints.
However, in my case I went to the public hearing for these projects. And rather than opposition, I strongly advocated for council to approve these towers as beneficial for all of Burnaby, particularly to expand housing availability and the density is also critical for our sustainability goals. Yes, my personal situation is somewhat diminished, yet, as a near life-long resident of Burnaby, a greater good will come from what council has rightly decided here.
Unfortunately, caveat emptor applies to those who complain about lost views. It would appear too many home buyers fail to examine the Zoning Bylaw for what nearby construction is already permitted, or what the Official Community Plan may permit in future. Thus, may I offer a neighborly reminder that the moment the Zoning Bylaw was adopted in 1965, and amended from time to time thereafter, that the old house next door to you should be viewed as just a temporary building until the full potential of the site is realized. Please contact the City of Burnaby Planning Department who, in my experience, have always been tremendously helpful in understanding what is happening in a particular neighbourhood.
And for the complaint that a house is being constructed that is not in compliance with setbacks, here is what the applicant for a Building Permit in Burnaby must attest to: “Responsibilities of the Owner – Every owner to whom a permit is issued shall ensure that all Construction complies with the Building Code, the Zoning Bylaw, and any other applicable bylaws or enactments.”
And in this case should the Builder have failed to adhere to these requirements (yet to be proven), the legal onus falls on the owner of this site to correct any setback errors, including removing any of the offending parts of the building. This is the correct solution, which the City of Burnaby is obligated to enforce, as to do otherwise would basically gut the Zoning Bylaw and a free-for-all would emerge where the wealthiest landowners just buy their way out of land-use conflicts. This in turn would create enormous uncertainty across the Burnaby housing market. Accordingly, Burnaby homeowners should reject the idea that wealthy homeowners can just buy exemptions from the Zoning Bylaw by paying off just one adjoining neighbour – we would all lose market value with this approach.
Anyway, these complaints do contribute to the community by bringing greater attention to the Zoning Bylaw, a vital piece of legislation that protects all homeowners. And please remember everyone has a right to influence housing policy direction through Council advocacy, before decisions are made.
Joe Sulmona, Burnaby
