Fans and foes of a heritage conservation area in Queen’s Park spoke for and against the plan for nearly five hours in council chambers Monday night – and they’ll get to do it all over again next month.
After hearing from more than 50 residents who support and opposed the proposed heritage conservation area (HCA), council voted unanimously in favour of giving first and second reading to official community plan amendment bylaws that would pave the way for creation of an HCA. The HCA is intended to protect existing heritage buildings and to provide design controls for new construction to ensure it’s respectful of the existing heritage neighbourhood.
“This isn’t something that is being imposed from city council on the community. It is something the community wants,” said HCA supporter Murray Hanson. “I think that’s a very important thing.”
Maureen Arvanitidis, a member of the New Westminster Heritage Preservation Society, said a working group spent three years looking at the issue, researching what’s being done in other jurisdictions, considering studies done on the neighbourhoods and conservation areas, hearing presentations from the B.C. Assessment Authority, the City of Vancouver and other groups, and meeting with solicitors.
“We came to the conclusion that a conservation area was the best and only way to go and save what the majority of residents said was important to them,” she said. “Queen’s Park has survived mostly by serendipity. It started with a group of people who, over the years, stood up for the heritage in a single-family neighbourhood. What was important to those people is important to people today – their neighbourhood, the diversity of heritage houses, the greenspace, all of which gives us a sense of place.”
Gary Holisko, another member of the working group, said the neighbourhood’s unique character is “fragile” and at risk of being lost without measures to preserve that character.
“I also don’t want to see my property lose its value, I don’t want excessive restrictions or unfair policies, and I don’t think the HCA, as crafted, will do this,” he said. “Through the research we did and the studies we looked at, there is no evidence to suggest that is the case.”
Not all Queen’s Park residents, however, are sold on the concept.
“We love our neighbourhood and do not wish to see it negatively divided into winners and losers,” said resident Mark Bice.
Bice disagrees with the notion that the neighbourhood will be bulldozed if the HCA doesn’t go through. He said the proposed policy favours owners of large, beautiful homes over owners of small, modest homes.
“This HCA policy is a campaign of fear. Anyone who wishes to hang on to their property rights, the same rights that every other resident in New Westminster has, is branded as being anti-heritage and accused of being developer-friendly,” he said. “Some of us often comment that they wish we were houses because then we might actually matter to certain people in this room. We feel completely powerless and demoralized.”
Longtime Queen’s Park resident Brenda McEachern Keen said development pressures put the neighbourhood at risk if action isn’t taken to preserver its heritage.
“If we get this wrong, we can’t fix it. We can’t put Humpty together again once demolished,” she said. “I would like to think of all as stewards of our heritage. This is not about any individual’s property value, it’s about the fabric of our community going forward, honouring what we have inherited and protecting it for those who follow.”
Jim Hutson said proposals to increase density and provide special consideration for owners of small lots will make it attractive for buyers and sellers in the neighbourhood.
“I think you have done everything possible and succeeded in trying to find the middle ground to heed the wishes of the vast majority so we continue to ooze charm, not lose it,” he said.
Unlike the Dunbar and Kitsilano neighborhoods in Vancouver, Queen’s Park resident Daniel Fontaine doesn’t think his neighbourhood is at risk of the wholesale demolition of older, character homes. Instead of addressing problems that don’t exist, he suggested the city should be focusing on real issues like improving its bad roads and addressing rising property taxes.
“I truly hope council will think long and hard about what you are about to do. However, sadly, based on what I have seen and what I have read, I think this is a done deal. Surely it can’t be lost on you that 2018 is a civic election year in the city. And while you may not have campaigned on this in your platform in 2014, it’s hard to imagine that it won’t be top of mind for a number of New Westminster residents when they go back to the polls next year,” he said.
Fontaine, who has voiced concerns about all council members being on the same political slate, said no one on council campaigned on creating a heritage conservation area during the 2014 civic election.
“This bylaw is shortsighted. It clearly is divisive, and if it is rammed through before the next election it will serve as a powerful reminder of what happens when there are no opposing views around this table,” he said.
Kyle Davison said the city should poll the 702 properties in the neighbourhood and asked if they support the heritage conservation area. He said the plan will strip 500 owners of their property rights.
“I think it’s wrong what you are doing – stripping property rights is a terrible thing to do to save buildings. Awful,” he said. “Please don’t do it.”
THE HCA – WHAT’S IT ALL ABOUT?
The proposed heritage conservation area (HCA) has been attracting crowds to council chambers for weeks. So, what’s it all about?
* In order to create a heritage conservation area, the city must amend the official community plan (OCP) to include heritage protection provisions and design guidelines. A public hearing to consider the OCP amendments is set to take place on June 13. The proposed heritage conservation area would take effect if and when council adopts the official community plan amendment bylaw.
* The HCA is intended to protect existing heritage buildings and to provide design controls for all new construction in the neighbourhood.
* The proposal would protect houses built in 1940 and earlier, by putting them in an advanced (protected) category. They would require permits for: proposed demolitions; construction to the front, sides or visible roof of the existing building; and construction of new buildings and associated landscaping. Permits aren’t required for: interior changes; changes to the back of the building or non-visible rear roof; changes to existing accessory buildings; or regular maintenance and repairs such as reroofing with similar material, painting or replacing worn siding or porch boards.
* Houses built in 1941 or later would be in the limited (non-protected) category, unless they are designated heritage homes or on the city’s heritage register. These homes aren’t protected in the HCA, but their owners would need the city’s approval to build a new principal building or new accessory buildings and for subdivisions or lot consolidations.
* A new proposal would see the creation of a “special limited” category, which is a temporary category for properties that were considered to be protected because of their age but may not be able to realize economic values from possible incentives because of the physical characteristics of their lot and house. A staff report states that this category would remove the renovation-related permit requirements from pre-1941 properties with those site characteristics, until more detailed economic analysis could be undertaken on each.
* Of the 700 or so single-family homes in the Queen’s Park neighbourhood, about 425 would be in the advanced (protected), about 75 properties would be in the special limited category and 195 properties would be in the limited (non-protected) category.
* Any new houses built in the neighbourhood would have to comply with mandatory design guidelines. This is to ensure new development is respectful of the existing heritage.
* If the HCA is approved, staff will get to work on a two-year work plan. That work includes looking into issues such as implementation of zoning-based incentives for the protected properties in the heritage conservation area, a voluntary “opt-in” to the advanced category for homes in the limited (non-protected) category, site-specific economic analysis for the “special limited” properties, an update to the minimum standards of maintenance bylaw for protected heritage properties, and a full review of the policy after two years.
