Burnaby - Density bonus plan draws criticism from city resident
Density bonus plan draws criticism from city resident
By Erin Hitchcock
Staff Reporter
A Burnaby man says the city's density bonus policy "is nothing more than a municipal bribe scam."
Hugh Finnamore, president of Strata Corporation NW3153, said a developer wanting three lots on Patterson Avenue to be rezoned may be allowed to build a three-storey building by paying the city nearly half-a-million dollars under the city's density bonus policy.
The policy was designed to grant density bonuses for residential multi-family developments under the condition that the developer provides community amenities, special needs housing or affordable housing in exchange for the extra density.
Those conditions must also be equal in value to the increase in property value.
"But that's not the case," said Finnamore, who recently attended a public hearing on the rezoning. "It's a zoning buy-off - plain and simple."
Finnamore said that rather than making developers provide the extra amenities, the Burnaby planners instead are encouraging the developer to provide a cash payment.
But, according to a city staff report, the bonus density policy, which was adopted last March, can also allow for a cash contribution instead of providing amenities if the bonus contributions are valued at less than $800,000.
Because the bonus density of 4,494.05 square feet is valued at $411,205.57 for the proposed project, the city is allowing the developer to pay the amount instead of providing amenities. That money would then be deposited into the Community Benefit account for the Metrotown Development Plan Area as a prerequisite for the rezoning application.
A public hearing was held Feb. 20, and at Monday night's city council meeting, the response to that hearing was released in a second staff report.
Finnamore, who had attended the hearing, said the three lots at 5480, 5516 and 5550 Patterson Ave. are slated to be developed into a 48-unit, three storey density bonus condo site.
On one of the lots, he said, is a group home for people with mental disabilities.
He said the group home was neither considered in the rezoning plans nor consulted until the plans were well into the process.
"They've actually displaced some people with mental disabilities," Finnamore said, adding that the city is allowing those people to be displaced.
The development was read for second reading as a bylaw amendment at the council meeting Monday night.
Councillors Garth Evans, Gary Begin and Lee Rankin voted against the bylaw due to the concerns that were raised by neighbours at the public hearing.
Evans said the developer didn't take into consideration the concerns of the people in the area.
"I don't think that's appropriate," Evans said. "That project on Patterson is a challenge."
He said in many cases, however, it is preferred that a developer pay the costs of the density bonus into the community account.
"It's more effective to accumulate the funds," he said, adding that it's better to be able to take the money from the account and create more affordable units in another area than a few in one building.
"It depends on the situation. You've got to decide on each case," he said, adding that he isn't sure what will happen to the people who live in the group home.
"I'm generally in favour of development," he said, "I was alarmed at the strength of the opposition from the adjoining neighbours and a concern that there had been little or no effort made to address those concerns. I would like higher density housing there, but I would also like higher density housing there that doesn't upset all of the neighbours."
The rest of council voted in favour of the development.
Finnamore said not only does the project exclude any community housing, there is no elevator or wheelchair accessible suites.
"The planning department seems to be pushing this. In exchange for cash, you can max out."
Finnamore, who has lived in the area for 16 years, said the density bonus system is a "noble idea" but not when developers can forgo adding community amenities by paying a chunk of money.
He said it's not the developer he has a problem with, but with the city's planning department who is pushing for this project to go through.
"A lot of it is being driven by the planning department. These sorts of things should have some public consultation."
He said the developer stands to make an extra $2.25 million from the added density, minus the half-a-million dollars the developer would be paying to the city for the bonus density.
The public hearing in February also touched on several other issues about the development that has left Finnamore concerned, including the removal of trees, parking, environmental and health impacts, crime, the design and materials for the building, garbage and recycling and fire access.
Finnamore said that several healthy, old trees would be chopped down if the project is approved.
According to the staff report, a tree survey was conducted and it concluded that the existing trees are in poor condition, so no trees would be kept as part of the development.
But Finnamore said the survey didn't take into consideration that there are trees on bordering properties that would be destroyed as a result of the development because many of the trees' root systems are on both sides of the properties.
"They'd have to cut off the entire root system," he said.
The report says 66 replacement trees would be added to the site, and a Section 219 Covenant will also be taken "to protect specific offsite trees to the southwest."
Finnamore said, however, this means the developer would have to pay for the removal of the trees.
"It's simply a cost of doing business."
He said the covenant doesn't apply to cedars on the Sardis Street side of the property or the cedar hedges and fir trees on the Patterson Avenue side and said the report fails to mention these.
Crime is also something Finnamore is concerned with and said that buildings like these create the potential for high-crime neighbourhoods since rental tenancy and absentee ownership in densely-populated neighbourhoods can equate to crime.
The staff report, however, says "in regards to the relationship between crime and higher density development, there is considered to be no specific correlation. The creation of good quality neighbourhoods would be considered to deter rather than promote crime."