PLANS for a new coach house in the City of North Vancouver sparked a testy debate during the final meeting of the outgoing council Monday night.
Although coach houses have been a contentious issue for many years, all of the previous applications under the city's 2010 guidelines have been approved without rancour.
The proposed house would be in the rear of the lot at 943 Shavington St. Built on a slope, it would be 1.6 storeys tall and provide 1,000 square feet of floor space. The design is an unconventional one, with the bedrooms at ground level and the kitchen and dining room upstairs. These public rooms open onto a 453square-foot deck, designed to take advantage of the south-facing views and sunlight. The city's coach house guidelines suggest - but don't require - a maximum deck size of 80 square feet.
One nearby resident told council she was very concerned with both the size of the deck and the project's public consultation process. Ann McKinnon acknowledged that she lived 10 houses down the street and likely would never see or hear from the new planned building.
"I am really concerned about the precedent that this development will set for our neighbourhood," she said. "I'm also concerned about the lack of transparency."
McKinnon said the oversize deck wasn't mentioned on the lot's public signage or in the documents she had received.
"Somehow this deck grew from when the neighbours were consulted in May to when it was presented to council in October," she said. "This brings the whole validity of this neighbourhood consultation into question.
"How can this not set a precedent? If someone has a house on Heywood (Street), which backs onto this lane, of course they would want a large deck to take advantage of the view. . . .
"This is neighbourhood busting, as far as I'm concerned, and exactly what we were trying to avoid with these coach house guidelines."
Coun. Pam. Bookham criticized designer Innes Yates for not providing illustrations of how the deck would overlook neighbouring properties and asked why the neighbours had been shown an earlier design with a smaller deck.
"It's not a minor increase," she said. "It's huge - five times the allowable size of the deck. These guidelines might not be part of the bylaw, but they represent the wishes of the community and the council that approved them.
"I don't see how an applicant can present some vague notion of what he wants to build . . . and then say the design was fluid. That's not honest dealing with the community."
Gary Penway, the city's deputy director of community development, commented that it's difficult to pick when to consult with the neighbours - early talks help shape the design but can lead to situations like this one, while later discussions can leave residents feeling ignored through much of the process.
Coun. Guy Heywood, however, also felt the consultation process was "flawed."
"I would not be surprised if a fully fledged consultation around this coach house gave rise to a positive result," he said. "My issue is more that we need to consult on a design that is pretty much final and let the neighbours know the true impact of this structure on the neighbourhood."
Heywood described the house as potentially starting a "fundamental change" in the area.
"That's worth more than a casual discussion in principle," he said.
Coun. Rod Clark also agreed. "There's one thing wrong with this coach house: the deck's too big," he said.
However, outgoing Coun. Mary Trentadue noted that none of the immediate neighbours were in council to object, and added that most non-professional consultations were flawed.
"What happens on that doorstep can be very different two weeks later. It's unfair to expect any different," she said. "It is a mess, but it's a mess we created. We have to do the best we can with the evidence we have."
"I can't deal with what might be an opinion out in the neighbourhood," agreed Coun. Bob Fearnley, also attending his last meeting. "I can only deal with the opinions I see before me. None of the next-door neighbours came forward and that speak volumes to me."
The plans were approved by a 4-3 vote.
