The zoning proposed to replace the LUC for our property is RM3 for low density townhouses. This zoning only allows for two storeys above ground but 46% of the buildings on our site are three storeys. The other 54% of the buildings are also three-storeys but with one-storey below ground they fall under an exception in RM3 for buildings on a sloping site.

The three-storey above ground buildings, which contain approximately 68 of our 158 units, will become non-conforming structures under the proposed zoning. I understand they will be grandfathered in but in the event of a fire or earthquake, if the buildings are severely damaged and need to be reconstructed, they would be subject to the two-storey height limitations in RM3.

Our insurance requires the buildings to be rebuilt to achieve the same value that they previously had, which means they must include the same amount of square footage. As you can imagine, rebuilding townhouses to have the same amount of square footage with one less storey would be problematic as they are currently constructed tightly together in rows and there is no space to simply expand the building footprint. This is also counter to one of the primary principles governing our strata which is that every building in the complex is roughly the same structure and layout.

The planning department at the City points out that they only need to provide zoning satisfying the majority of the buildings on the site to feel that they’ve done their job adequately and they assure us that, should this kind of scenario occur, a variance can be applied for and that staff would likely be supportive. But the City’s approach on this is not right for the following reasons:

• In the event that families living here tragically lose their homes, the City would have them first come to City Hall to beg and plead for the right to rebuild their homes as they were – if the City was doing it’s job properly, that shouldn’t be necessary.
• Has the City considered that the damage to our buildings could be caused a major seismic event? With Covid, we’ve seen how unlikely scenarios can and do occur. In which case, how quickly would the City be able to respond to our variance application, when it would have so much else going on following such an event? Do you realize the difficult position this would put us in when trying to rebuild our homes in that scenario?
• Eagle Point is located next to Newport Village and we, quite literally, sit in the shadows of twenty-storey towers and planning is underway for new development in Coronation Park which includes 26 to potentially 36 storey towers across the road on another side of the complex, yet, the City will not approve our three storey buildings; even though three-storey buildings have existed here for over 40-years

Residents here may not have the apparent clout with City Hall that developers do but many here have been paying property taxes for decades and the complex provides modestly dense and relatively affordable, ground oriented family friendly units, which council seems to seek in new development – so what good does it do for the community to put these homes at risk?

The planning department doesn’t seem to have an issue with the current height of the buildings at Eagle Point because it indicated it would be supportive of a height variance, should one be needed, so I suggest it would be proper for the City to codify that properly.

We would ask the City explore one of the following approaches to rectify the situation:

• The City could zone the property RM4, which allows three storey townhouses – this is what the neighbouring townhouse property is being zoned as its LUC is also being terminated; or
• The City could create a new zone for Eagle Point based on RM3 but with the height and storey restriction revised for three storey townhouses; perhaps this would be similar to how a specific zone was created for the Heritage Woods townhouse development; or lastly
• The City could amend RM3 to allow for 3-storey buildings, similar to what it is doing to allow our recreation building