Comments for

Comment on The Olympics are closer than you think! by St. Helen's

St. Helen's — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 18:53:38 +0000

Hi George! Send me a line at info@sthelenspark and we’ll talk!

Comment on The Olympics are closer than you think! by George

George — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 01:05:49 +0000

Super!! And keeping right up to date, which I think is hard to do. Could you please make contact so we might discuss possible collaboration? (I’ve previously discussed with GR). Thank you.

Comment on The Largest Christmas Display in St. Helen’s Park by Greg

Greg — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 15:28:28 +0000

Excellent display! Looks great every year!

Comment on Forum to be held Thursday, November 26, 2009 by Reg. & Carole Ahern

Reg. & Carole Ahern — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 01:16:36 +0000

My wife and I have lived in our 1,200 sq.ft. home for over 46 years and raised 3 sons . We have a very nice backyard which we enjoy very much where we grow our own fruit and vegetables on one half. The other half has two ponds with a small stream running between them with fish in the ponds. We also have bird boxes and feeders so we have a lot of birds.
We enjoy being in our backyard sometimes puttering and sitting out until11 p.m. in the summer.If there was to be two of these giant houses built on either side of us we would be boxed in having to stare at huge walls on either side. That would be almost like being put in prison we would have our sunlight cut off.
We are not against large houses per se as long as they are on appropriate large lots not on regular 60×120 ft.lots, where they take most of the lots and have paved front yards for parking multi vehicles. These huge homes require a lot more services ie sewer, water, and garbage stressing our existing infrastructure to the limit possibly overloading it. These huge homes dwarf our homes and we would not have much if any privacy.
Reg. Ahern

Comment on Surrey’s Open Houses about the RF Zoning Change – Recap and Response by John

John — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 18:38:10 +0000

I think this is a great summary of the information pertaining to the issue. The letter to the editor in the links supplied communicates what the real issue is that has caused this dilemma. thanks for posting the details.

Comment on Surrey’s Proposed RF Zoning Change Open Houses Announced by St. Helen's

St. Helen's — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 07:29:11 +0000

Harvey, I think you may be confused. First I’m not sure where the “48% of a house” is coming from. The Floor-area-ratio (FAR) is currently at 0.48 which I believe means you cannot build a house with a floor area bigger than 48% of the lot square footage – not including the basement. So if you have a lot that is 8,000 sqft, you could conceivably build a house that was 3840 sqft (not including basement) if the RF zone wasn’t capped at 3550 sqft. The new proposal is wanting to increase the FAR to 0.60 which would increase the possible square footage to 4800, if it wasn’t capped by the proposed increase of 4550sqft.

Regarding your “MEGA HOUSE” comment: If it was a comment used with malice or was misleading, why would a Realtor use it in the description for these homes? A quick search found descriptors like “Loaded Newton beauty mega house”, “Well kept mega house” “Must see Mega house”. Not surprisingly these houses all had more than one unauthorized suite in them which was stated plainly in the ad. So if you ask me, “megahouse”, “monsterhouse”, “Mcmansion” etc, are all just descriptive words that represent a house that is oversized and that may or may not dwarf the houses around it and most likely has suites in it. There is no malice in that statement.

Regarding neighbouring cities: If you read the original corporate report (C005), one of the appendices breaks down what each city includes or does not include in their single family zoning. Any city that is over the 3550sqft also includes basements (it says Burnaby does not but that has been questioned). Only Coquitlam allows over the 4550sqft that Surrey is asking for and they include basements too. If Surrey allows the 4550sqft plus basements, this will put them way over what the other cities are. It is right there in the math. Anyone who is saying otherwise hasn’t looked at the real numbers or is trying to pull the wool over other people’s eyes.

Comment on Surrey Ratepayers Association Requests Change to RF Zoning by Valerie

Valerie — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 04:42:43 +0000

I completely agree with Jennifer (Aug. 4/09), and I strongly agree with points 4 &5 of the concerns that the SWRA have raised.

Comment on Surrey’s Proposed RF Zoning Change Open Houses Announced by Harvey

Harvey — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 01:27:12 +0000

Allowing 48 % of house is not MEGA HOUSE. This is a wrong and misleading expression used with malice. Check any neighboring city and they allow a lot more. Why is Surrey diffrent by putting a cap of 3550 sq feet (That too including garage). This is nothing but ridiculous.

Comment on Updates to Robson Park by Garth

Garth — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 19:45:03 +0000

Execellent, surely will bring the value of the neighbourhood back up again and give everyone a great new park to meet in.

Progress pictures would be an excellent addition to this feed.

Comment on Surrey Ratepayers Association Requests Change to RF Zoning by Jennifer

Jennifer — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 07:41:52 +0000

Thanks in particular to SWRA President Grant RIce for his diligent efforts in responding to the proposed RF zoning changes, per George Davies’ comments in the “Welcome” item on this site. Good fortune indeed …