The author of this letter appeared before Council on October 10th, 2017 and explained
how neighbours and other members of the community have serious concerns about
degradation of Oak Bay's foreshore areas. It is apparent from recent incidents that
Council has no standard policy or regulatory framework to deal with foreshore
violations. They have chosen instead to rely on voluntary covenants (one was recently
withdrawn after the development was approved) and allow the the owner/ developer
to hire their own contractors to remedy the damage they have caused.
Much more effective solutions would be to insist on compulsory covenants (most likely
saving significant taxpayer dollars in court costs) and the municipality's restoring the
foreshore as closely as possible to its original state and charging the owner/ developer for
the restoration. This is a legislated option that provides both for an effective deterrent
and the best possible outcome. It is important that Council maintain a balance for our
foreshore to provide both beach access and privacy for the community and for the
homeowner whose property abuts the foreshore.
Community Letter:
Dear Mayor Jensen, Councillors and Staff,
I should clarify that I am addressing you as a concerned citizen and not as a
board member of the Heritage Commission. A friend snapped this photograph
(see Picture attachment) of my new neighbour's lot on Sunny Lane this past
weekend).
There are concerns about cliffside stability and safety and possible misunder-
standings and miscommunications at the Municipal level. I spoke with the new
owner, A.B. a few days ago to share advice gleaned from my family’s experience
of over 60 years at 151 Sunny Lane. I mentioned that the rock in the cliffs can
fragment into boulders and invited him to visit the garden here to see huge rocks
that have peeled off the cliff.
We had Oak Bay remove a boulder that had tumbled into our garden years ago,
and the Municipality accepted responsibility for the rock that slammed into the
house between A.B’s property and mine. (A reminder of possible legal
liability: the Municipality spent weeks removing other rocks and drilling into the
cliff to pin rods that hold strong mesh to stabilize that cliff section). I told A.B.
that a former geologist neighbour advised my husband and me to retain trees
and vegetation as a buffer, and suggested that he plant trees that could mature
into a safeguard. A.B. replied that an appropriate wall was being constructed,
that he had consulted a geotechnical engineer, and had received the necessary
approvals from the Municipality. Since then, more of the cliff side was removed,
to the very border of his property. Note: the orange surveyor's tape that can be seen
in the photo attachment beside A.B.’s outdoor staircase, which now hovers over
the newly created precipice.
It does not make sense that neighbours on King George Terrace and Sunny Lane
who planned modest upper storey additions within the existing home’s footprint
require both approval from Council and neighbour consultation, while this is not
required to allow hollowing out an unstable cliff to enlarge the footprint of a new
house and over developing the lot. Retired geologist Chris Yorath. (author of The
Geology of Southern Vancouver Island) states that cliffs should not be made steeper
Where the rock can fragment and the rainy season can last for months in our
earthquake zone, that is wise advice.
I am copying this to neighbours and other residents who are also very concerned
about the similar removal of trees and vegetation along the Oak Bay Shoreline, that
anchor the soil and retain so much moisture. Recent examples are: nearby 383 and
363 King George Terrace (KGT) at Sunny Lane where an inappropriate boulder
wall replaced a well rooted buffer zone and, the Bare Land Strata development at
237 KGT alongside the world class Lookout at Trafalgar Park. In the later case it
was accepted by the Oak Bay District’s appointed Approving Officer to add 4 houses
on a Single Family property without Council's involvement, policy, guidelines
or neighborhood consultation – despite signed objections by about 80 neighbours
who worry about blasting away valued habitat and crave fair consultation. How
was this considered to be in the public interest?
Municipal staff is overworked in part because much development is disrespectful of
the principles of the Official Community Plan. Let us work together to implement
Green Shores Stewardship, the Urban Forest Strategy and an affordable Housing
Strategy, all emphasized by our OCP.
I am also copying this to the Oak Bay News. The photograph, if published,
could serve as an example of current acceptance of a bare land approach to
development that many residents find threatens our better nature.
Sincerely, Marion Cumming
how neighbours and other members of the community have serious concerns about
degradation of Oak Bay's foreshore areas. It is apparent from recent incidents that
Council has no standard policy or regulatory framework to deal with foreshore
violations. They have chosen instead to rely on voluntary covenants (one was recently
withdrawn after the development was approved) and allow the the owner/ developer
to hire their own contractors to remedy the damage they have caused.
Much more effective solutions would be to insist on compulsory covenants (most likely
saving significant taxpayer dollars in court costs) and the municipality's restoring the
foreshore as closely as possible to its original state and charging the owner/ developer for
the restoration. This is a legislated option that provides both for an effective deterrent
and the best possible outcome. It is important that Council maintain a balance for our
foreshore to provide both beach access and privacy for the community and for the
homeowner whose property abuts the foreshore.
Community Letter:
Dear Mayor Jensen, Councillors and Staff,
I should clarify that I am addressing you as a concerned citizen and not as a
board member of the Heritage Commission. A friend snapped this photograph
(see Picture attachment) of my new neighbour's lot on Sunny Lane this past
weekend).
There are concerns about cliffside stability and safety and possible misunder-
standings and miscommunications at the Municipal level. I spoke with the new
owner, A.B. a few days ago to share advice gleaned from my family’s experience
of over 60 years at 151 Sunny Lane. I mentioned that the rock in the cliffs can
fragment into boulders and invited him to visit the garden here to see huge rocks
that have peeled off the cliff.
We had Oak Bay remove a boulder that had tumbled into our garden years ago,
and the Municipality accepted responsibility for the rock that slammed into the
house between A.B’s property and mine. (A reminder of possible legal
liability: the Municipality spent weeks removing other rocks and drilling into the
cliff to pin rods that hold strong mesh to stabilize that cliff section). I told A.B.
that a former geologist neighbour advised my husband and me to retain trees
and vegetation as a buffer, and suggested that he plant trees that could mature
into a safeguard. A.B. replied that an appropriate wall was being constructed,
that he had consulted a geotechnical engineer, and had received the necessary
approvals from the Municipality. Since then, more of the cliff side was removed,
to the very border of his property. Note: the orange surveyor's tape that can be seen
in the photo attachment beside A.B.’s outdoor staircase, which now hovers over
the newly created precipice.
It does not make sense that neighbours on King George Terrace and Sunny Lane
who planned modest upper storey additions within the existing home’s footprint
require both approval from Council and neighbour consultation, while this is not
required to allow hollowing out an unstable cliff to enlarge the footprint of a new
house and over developing the lot. Retired geologist Chris Yorath. (author of The
Geology of Southern Vancouver Island) states that cliffs should not be made steeper
Where the rock can fragment and the rainy season can last for months in our
earthquake zone, that is wise advice.
I am copying this to neighbours and other residents who are also very concerned
about the similar removal of trees and vegetation along the Oak Bay Shoreline, that
anchor the soil and retain so much moisture. Recent examples are: nearby 383 and
363 King George Terrace (KGT) at Sunny Lane where an inappropriate boulder
wall replaced a well rooted buffer zone and, the Bare Land Strata development at
237 KGT alongside the world class Lookout at Trafalgar Park. In the later case it
was accepted by the Oak Bay District’s appointed Approving Officer to add 4 houses
on a Single Family property without Council's involvement, policy, guidelines
or neighborhood consultation – despite signed objections by about 80 neighbours
who worry about blasting away valued habitat and crave fair consultation. How
was this considered to be in the public interest?
Municipal staff is overworked in part because much development is disrespectful of
the principles of the Official Community Plan. Let us work together to implement
Green Shores Stewardship, the Urban Forest Strategy and an affordable Housing
Strategy, all emphasized by our OCP.
I am also copying this to the Oak Bay News. The photograph, if published,
could serve as an example of current acceptance of a bare land approach to
development that many residents find threatens our better nature.
Sincerely, Marion Cumming
