Coldstream Destroying Private Property Rights

Excellent letter from Ken and Karen Dahlen, reproduced with permission:

My name is Ken Dahlen and my wife and I own Keith Dahlen Construction located in Coldstream, and we also own 15 acres located on Aberdeen (Road).

As Council knows, we were the contractor chosen to renovate the Paterson's home on Kidston Road.  During the planning process we met Coldstream's planner, Craig Broderick, and the Building Official, Bob Bibby.  This is a common practice for most construction companies to ensure that they have a clear understanding of the bylaws, rules and regulations.  Keith Construction was very clearly advised that if we stayed within the current bylaws and required no variance, or re-zoning that the District of Coldstream would have no issue with our permit application.  We also discussed the possible proposed bike path and again Mr. Broderick advised us that if we stayed within the current regulations that the District of Coldstream would not ask for upgrades or improvements.  We all know we are now almost one year later and no building permit has been issued.  So at this time we have only two possible questions that require answering:

1. Did Mr. Broderick and Mr. Bibby act on their own and make a mistake in the interpretation of the bylaw?
2. Or was this set up as a trap for my clients so that they would have no choice but to give in to the demands of Coldstream?

"The process has not been open and transparent and makes me very, very concerned for the future of Coldstream..."

As a professional contractor it is critical that we have clear, transparent guidelines to follow.  Hundreds of thousands of dollars are being invested in personal homes.  For most clients this is their life savings and their last safe holdings for themselves and/or their families.

I believe it is also important for everyone to understand that the District of Coldstream started their demands with the Patersons by the following:

1. The building permit was conditional that my client upgrade Kidston Road in front of their property, some 300 lineal feet to current standards, (when this did not work)
2. The District then asked for gifting of the land required for the proposed bike path, (when this did not work)
3. The District then proposed to purchase the required land at the tax assessment value for the proposed bike path, (when this did not work)
4. The District then proposed  to purchase the required land at market value for the proposed bike path.

I would like to make sure we all understand that the Patersons were adding on a garage and renovating their home.  That was it.  Hundreds of other homeowners have done so with no issues and no requests for land, or upgrades.  There is no increase on the infrastructure as it is still a single family home and meets all the regulations of the zoning.

There is no impact on the community.  The benefit we will have is a new, improved home that would increase the District's tax base.  I believe this is a good thing, right? 

When you look at how the demands have changed by the District of Coldstream it would seem to me they are doing whatever they can to try and extort this property for a bike path and in doing so, hold up my client from their buiding permit.  The process has not been open and transparent and makes me very, very concerned for the future of Coldstream.

I would ask that Council take a moment and reflect on the property owners of Coldstream.  I believe they know what is right and what is wrong and for our community to steal property from one homeowner for the benefit of the community is wrong.  If we as a community feel we require upgrades to roads, bike paths, wheelchair access to the beach, or a new Works Yard building then we should be advised, understand the costs, negotiate a fair deal and proceed as a community.

I do not support this Council trying to change and manipulate a bylaw so we can play "Robin Hood" and take from those who choose to improve their homes and/or build a new home on property that is already zoned for that exact use!

As a building contractor I am really not sure what to tell new clients when asking about new projects.  This should be a very simple review of the bylaws and very transparent.

"I believe every single property owner in Coldstream should understand what is at risk..."

I would ask Council to open this review of the subdivision bylaw to the public.  I feel that the past "Technical Review Committee" and the new "CoW" is another way of changing bylaws without everyone knowing what is happening.  There seems to be no interest in getting professional input for this review, just Council and staff strategizing on how best to change the bylaws.  I believe every single property owner in Coldstream should understand what is at risk, and you need to be very clear and make them understand your request to change this bylaw.

As a property owner in Coldstream and in Canada, I feel the following points need to be addressed:

1. Property ownership comes with rights.  When you own your land and pay your taxes it comes with the rules and regulations that allow you to improve your property or build structures based on the zoning of your land.  I believe we live in Canada and owning property still stands for something.
2. No one can change your zoning if they don't own it, you own it and you have legal rights so stand up for your rights.
3. When you purchased your land, the roads, sidewalks, sewer and water are installed and owned by the municipality.  The land owner does not own them unless it is a strata development.  The property owner pays taxes each year for the use of and for upgrades as required to the infrastructure.
4. In your own building permit regulations it states that no permit shall be withheld as long as it meets the current regulations that are on title for this property.
5. I also believe that you cannot ask for a second development servicing charge on your property.  As long as it stays with the current zoning.
6. So knowing that land owners do not own the sidewalks, roads, sewer and water, it would seem to make sense that as a community we budget for the repair, maintenane and upgrades as the need arises.
7. Individual land owners should not be at risk of major upgrades and or gifting of land to the community just to have the right to renovate or build their home!  We already have that right to build and renovate our homes, but the District of Coldstream is trying to suggest that they want the right to check in on all building permits and see if they want upgrades, or land, etc.  I would like to be clear on this also:  A single family renovation and/or home construction is not a development.  Single family home owners are not developers.
8. How will you handle this if a home burns down and the insurance funds are for replacement of the home only and the District is now wanting curb and gutter or upgrades included?  If the client does not have the funds and the insurance company has confirmed they do not cover sidewalks, curbs and gutters, how does the homeowner rebuild?  The insurance industry has stated clearly that you cannot insure what you don't own.  So how can the District feel entitled to this requirement in their new bylaw?

In closing, we feel that we have lost focus on what is really at stake here.  It is not about one building permit for the Patersons.  It is not about the proposed bike path.  It is about the District of Coldstream using its powers to change the bylaws on our land to allow them to make standard building permits conditional as they choose to see fit.  They are twisting the current bylaw and using the Subdivision and Development bylaw and trying to apply this to a standard single family building permit.

This is an erosion of our property rights and should not be allowed as long as we own our land in its current zoning.  Banks and Appraisal companies value our land knowing we have the rights to upgrade and build on our land, they are not counting on property owners having to gift land and/or upgrade municipal infrastructure.  If you change this, how will they know how to value our property?

The property owners have rights and I believe this Council needs to understand that we did not elect them to change the bylaws on our property.

Your jobs as councillors should be simple, to ensure that the bylaws, rules and regulations are regulated fairly, openly, and honestly.

Thank you.  (Signed) Ken and Karen Dahlen

(Ed.note:  "bold" text blog author)

"Mr. Dahlen only left out that we're still a democracy ... last time we looked anyway," offers Kia.