Email from D. Myles and E. Wilson, Re: Development Permit No. 2011/13 – 301 Nursery Hill Drive

Elena Bolster

Subject: FW: Development Permit - 301 Nursery Hill Drive

-----Original Message----- From: dmyles Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 6:10 PM To: Info Address Subject: Development Permit - 301 Nursery Hill Drive

View Royal Planning Department Staff:

We are writing to you to voice serious concern for the Development Permit application for 301 Nursery Hill Drive, particularly regarding the variances that the developer has requested to building bylaws.

Firstly, Nursery Hill Drive is an area which has MAJOR parking problems stemming from the narrow-ness of the private road, and lack of street parking. I understand from our Strata Council that the Town of View Royal approved the current road plans. Afterwards, the fire department closed the street parking because the narrow width of the road. This has caused major issues including illegal parking on the sides of the road on a regular basis.

I personally bought in knowing there were parking issues here, but I am very concerned that the variances requested regarding the 301 property will exacerbate the current issue, particularly because they are requesting to have zero additional/recreational parking spaces. The current parking issue was a Town of View Royal caused problem and yes, I recognize the developer had a part in this, but the residents of the area expect good planning by the City, which did not occur in this case.

Secondly, the developer is requesting to reduce the size of their rear yard setback and increase the # of allowable buildings from one to three.

This again is an issue, due to the very close cluster of buildings in this area. I was told by the town of View ROyal (upon purchasing my suite) that the land was zoned for a 3 story apartment complex, of similar size to my current building. It is very concerning that View Royal would consider approving anything otherwise. View Royal is not Langford, and I would seriously hope that the Planning Department would take the current concentration of buildings and residents into consideration, and NOT approve the additional buildings.

Respectfully,

Danielle Myles and Edison Wilson