Photo: Gagandeep Ghuman
By Gagandeep Ghuman
Published: Dec 14, 2013
As a young boy, Bartsch escaped the tyranny of communist Eastern Europe where the government had no respect for individual property rights.
Now the District of Squamish is bringing those grim childhood memories back for him.
A riparian area bylaw passed by the district in 2010 has wiped out 90 per cent of Art Bartsch’s residential lot, what he calls a ‘de facto appropriation’.
Art Bartsch bought a 7,200 square feet lot on Kingswood Road in Brackendale in 1980 with a dream to build a home on retirement.
But when his wife passed away recently, Bartsch decided to sell the lot, one among the only two remaining lots in the neighbourhood.
That’s when he found out that almost 90 per cent of his lot would be ‘lost’ in setbacks demanded by the Riparian Area Regulation (RAR) bylaw the district passed in 2010.
The RAR bylaw was derived from new federal and provincial laws which included older subdivisions into the new riparian regulations.
The bylaw states the setbacks are to be determined by a detailed environmental assessment, which turned out to be 27.6 metre setback from the creek on Bartsch’s lot.
That essentially wiped out 90 per cent of the lot.
Bartsch had to sell his lot to a buyer for $80,000 less than its assessed value.
The new buyer will be able to use approximately 1520 square foot space (about 25 per cent of the lot), but only after he has paid $25,000 as compensation to the DFO.
The bylaw was non-existent when the subdivision was built; In fact, if the riparian area bylaw was applied to all homes on the same street, the homes would have to be razed.
Bartsch said it’s unfair for district to apply new rules to old subdivisions, steamrolling people like him in the process.
“This is de facto expropriation by the district and this is not fair,” he said.
“My 33 fellow neighbours along the creek do not suffer the same consequence, but I’m being singled out”
After he found out the bylaw demanded 27.6 metre setback, Bartsch hired an independent professional to determine what setback would provide sufficient protection to the creek.
The professional concluded a 10-13 metre setback would have been enough to provide adequate fishery protection.
When Bartsch wrote to the district in September asking for compensation, his request was rejected.
Now, Bartsch is warning other lots owners with proximity to creek to do their due diligence before they plan to build or sell their lots.
“There are lots in Squamish that will have to take similar hits on this bylaw,” he said.
Dave says
This is an unfortunate and strange situation. I am assured that normal setbacks are indeed under and not more than 15 metres.
Mr. Bartsch has been caught in a cold and uncaring wind of bureaucracy. His is, apparently, not a case of greedy speculation where a guy buys a lot and sits on it for years to make an accumulative profit; but rather he was intending to retire there in a self built house with his wife when he retired… .sadly she passed away early. Had he been like so many influential individuals in the local area he would , likely, have been given a variance in his favour. So many have, so why this lack of consideration? A person in his position could be given the option of retaining or planting sufficient trees satisfy riparian need. He could have even signed a covenant/subject to, to assure husbandry of the adjacent stream by the new buyer. Many who have homes next to the creek are bound by such an arrangement and are “grand-fathered” in this regard.
David Lassmann says
Here’s the thing: Much of the land that is used by human development exists in sensitive and important wildlife habitat. All of the valley bottom development including the Upper Squamish and Upper Cheakamus is built on a flood plain. All of downtown Squamish is in the middle of the Squamish/Mamquam/Stawamus estuary. The question is, “where do we go from here and how can we restore these severely compromised ecosystems?” I know, let’s demolish all of the dykes along the rivers and around downtown Squamish and let nature work her magic. You can see why this is not a popular scheme. Why have we not placed a moratorium on development on the flood plain? You know the answer, don’t you? And let’s face it, there will be damage to come, much, much more. So do we want to preserve something of our natural ecosystems or not?
Getting back to the main subject, an alternate approach would be for some level of government to aquire these properties in question by appropriation and pay out the present assessed value to the owners. End of problem, but where will the money come from? From your increased tax payments, of course.