Letter from Barry G. Saladana regarding 'The Wall' – 283 Kerwood St

SUBJECT: The "Wall" – 283 Kerwood St

To: Mayor and Council

I am concerned that the terms of DP 2011/15 approved by Council early in 2012 have not been met and that, in fact, a radically different structure has appeared on the waterfront. The mortared in place rock wall on the Esquimalt Harbour side of 283 Kerwood St is 4.0 meters high at one point and, in general, is "massive" compared with that which was approved by and envisioned in the DP. Having attended the meeting where the DP was discussed and approved, I recall Council being very specific that it did not want to see a large wall facing Esquimalt Harbour – this is exactly what has "appeared".

My main concern surrounds the issue of setting a "precedent". Yes, staff can wax on about how each property in the DP zone is treated individually but although there may be no "legal" precedent, the fact that one owner/builder has managed to erect what amounts to a massive wall on a small lot will encourage other developers to argue for the same type of structure. This is very relevant and timely because the house next to my residence is for sale and it straddles two waterfront lots (275 and 277 Kerwood St). Already the realtor for this sale has been asked by perspective buyers whether or not they could also build walls similar to the one just three lots over.

The "great wall" at 283 Kerwood St presents some esthetic issues in terms of views from the waterfront and from the public access points at the end of Stewart and Beaumont Streets as would potential similar walls at 275 and 277 Kerwood St. More personally, from my perspective would be the very significant loss of privacy associated with such large walls. I suggest that invariably structures like this on the water side of a house are intended primarily for one (usually not stated) purpose: to increase the outside "living" area and move that area as close to the water side of the house as possible regardless of any incursion into the waterfront setback zone. Such violations of the setback zone have very significant potential to degrade the environment and the privacy of neighbours' as has happened to the owner of 281 Kerwood St – my next door neighbour – who is dramatically impacted by the "Great Wall".

I have read the written explanation that the owner/builder of 283 Kerwood has given to Council for his substantial violation of the DP and also listened to his arguments in favour of getting "forgiveness" now rather than "permission" prior to construction. Some of what he offers follows:

a. the plan approved in the DP was based on an incomplete assessment of the then existing slope which was hampered by vegetation;

Note: These were invasive, non-native blackberry bushes which could easily have been partially removed to determine the slope;

b. the owner was absent during a crucial part of the wall construction and his contractor constructed something beyond his instructions;

c. the construction had to be done very quickly because work on other aspects of the house had to be held in abeyance so that a clear path for a very large excavator could be left unobstructed; and

d. Town staff provided ambivalent advice or were absent during a crucial period when he needed to speak with them.

I submit that points a, b and c above were and are solely within the ambit of the owner/builder. And, if the owner/builder has evidence that point d has merit than he has recourse to the courts.

I have spoken with the owner/builder on several occasions including at a meeting at 283 Kerwood St on 17 March 2013. I have always assessed him as being intelligent, very organized and well-spoken. I admire his initiative and boldness in blasting for over a month and removing over 200 truckloads of rock in preparation for building his house. I find the house – excluding the wall – appealing from the outside and the interior is very impressive. Given his apparent intelligence and involvement in the myriad other details of the construction process I find it quite incongruent that the "wall" was both inevitable and it "happened" to a significant extent without his full involvement in the process.

I am puzzled as to how the owner/builder of 283 Kerwood St managed to build the existing wall without receiving a "stop work order" early in the process. It seems obvious that he should have approached Council, through staff, for an approved amendment to his DP or a new approved DP. Regardless of how it happened, I hope that some resolution to the existing problem can be found that results in:

a. the owner of 281 Kerwood St having his concerns satisfied in regard to privacy; and

b. the Town's issues regarding: i. views from the harbour; ii. intrusion into the setback zone (other than that envisioned in the original approved DP); and iii. failure to obtain an approved DP for the "wall" be addressed.

Surely, in this matter at least, the legitimate interests of the Town and those of the owner of 281 Kerwood should come before those of the owner/builder of 283 Kerwood.

I don't harbour any wish that the owner/builder of 283 Kerwood be "punished" but I certainly hope that the interests of the other parties can be satisfied and greater vigilance of DPs can be exercised especially in regard to building near sensitive areas like the harbour and other waterways.

My requests are:

a. some mechanism be implemented or an existing one be enforced that better ensures that DPs are complied with and that at the earliest complaint or "heads up" from a resident that a building site be visited and a stop work order be implemented if such action is warranted; and

b. this letter be entered into the official record,

Sincerely,

Barry Saladana