Report: Council Committee of the Whole (COW) Meeting September 18, 2017
Now that Bare Land Strata Subdivisions have taken a foothold in Oak Bay, it appears that developers and Council are poised to move forward with Heritage Revitalization Agreement (HRA) Developments. Three such developments were presented at the Council COW Meeting last Monday night. The Municipal Planning Report indicated HRA’s, “take precedence over other relevant bylaws such as a zoning Bylaw”. In effect this means developers are allowed much more “leeway” to override our municipal zoning, thereby eliminating any included community and neighbouring property protections. This certainly is the case in the Brighton/Foul Bay Rd HRA proposal: in this subdivision development application the existing home is not even on the designated heritage register. Additionally the proposal calls for:
A Council member commented that the 4 secondary suite concept in the “converted, revitalized, out of sight”, existing, heritage-type house was consistent with the Official Community Plan, so he did not have a problem with approval. However, he failed to point out the Official Community Plan (OCP) states: “secondary suites are only to be considered in consultation with the public” and Infill Zoning revision requirements should be: “related to house sizes, relationship to adjacent houses and yards, access to units, off street parking”.
The same should apply to heritage house conversions, if and when approved by a zoning change – not a unilateral spot zoning change decided solely by Council. Eliminating zoning and parking requirements will almost surely reduce the property values of adjacent existing homes.
Neighbours and a Council member made the following points:
A council member pointed out it would be nice if the “Heritage House” could actually be seen (a point also made by the Heritage Commission who also cautioned heritage houses should not be moved and questioned the feasibility of suite conversion). This raises the question “If a heritage house fell in the forest would anyone see it? In this situation as most of the trees on the lot would be removed, there would be no urban forest and the four new homes would block any heritage viewpoint from Foul Bay Road.
The developer stated he has been discussing this development with staff for 11 Months. This raises another question: why doesn’t Council have policy and guidelines in place for Bare Land Strata Subdivisions and Heritage Revitalization Agreement Developments? By now Council could certainly have included existing resident protections (as outlined in the Official Community Plan) as other communities have done. Oak Bay Watch was informed by the Victoria Planning Department that each large subdivision development is submitted to the appropriate Community Association. A number have been rejected on the basis of the developer’s trying to “pack too much on the lot”. While this development was sent back for revision the other two HRA’s were approved. There is no guarantee, however, that this subdivision would not be approved with minor changes, as per the Clive and Cadboro Bay/Bowker 43 condo development.
Read on for more Council COW agenda news.
At a 6:00 pm Council Meeting before the 7:00 pm Sept 18, COW Meeting four Council Members, Jenson, Ney, Croft and Kirby voted to:
“Undertake the Regulation of Secondary Suites”
The same four Councillors have previously prioritized and allocated considerable tax dollars for this significant densification objective over the protests of the other three Council Members Murdoch, Brathwaite and Zhelka who voted against.
A Council Resolution by Councillor Braithwaite:
This may be a good opportunity to question Councillors why they are not prioritizing community objectives such as our aging infrastructure, keeping costs in check, sharing core services and protecting existing resident’s interests. They could also perhaps explain how the negative impacts of their many over-development initiatives are going to be addressed to satisfy the Official Community Plan (page 77 4.3.1 Housing Objective #1
The danger for the Community with all these Council development initiatives is that Council have no overall housing plan, have not provided any information on how they plan to control growth and deal with the negative impacts inherent in their many development objectives. As indicated, Council have not announced any policy and guidelines for the Planning Department to follow with these subdivisions but if they have, it is apparent they are not likely in the public interest or they would have been published. Note: Oak Bay does not routinely carry out environmental studies on Bare Land Strata or HRA subdivisions. Yet the ecological impacts on the urban forest and infrastructure are significant - with the amount of tree cutting and paving which are permitted at almost every Council meeting. .
It is still a mystery why Council disbanded the resident Environmental and Traffic Committees at the start of their term. It has become clear that, at this early stage, they started to prioritize over-development. While they did place one member with environmental expertise on the Advisory Planning Commission, environmental impacts are rarely discussed at Commission meetings, and public input including submissions is shut out. At a recent Advisory Planning Commission meeting, regarding a King George Terrace, Bare Land Strata Subdivision proposal, an environmental report was required as a shoreline area was involved. However the developer-generated environmental report was denied to the Commission member with the environmental expertise. The development was recommended to Council.
There have been requests by the public during the three years this Council has been in office for the re-establishment of what should be compulsory, regulatory, resident-input Committees, but to no avail. Due to the type of development going on and planned, a new initiative for the revival of the Environmental and Traffic Committees has been spearheaded by Councillor Zhelka and some very reputable, concerned members of the Community: however to date, there have been no takers on Council.
*******Please help us continue to provide you with information about Community concerns and Council decisions and actions. Oak Bay Watch members also help community groups with their specific development concerns. Donate to Oak Bay Watch - even $5 or $10 dollars provides expenses for door- to- door handouts and helps us maintain our website. Oak Bay Watch is committed to ensuring the Community gets the full range of information on budget, governance and all key development issues – a well informed opinion cannot be made without this.
(Please use Donate Button at bottom of oakbaywatch.com Home Page)
Keep informed please sign up for our newsletter – bottom of Newsletter Menu Item.
Now that Bare Land Strata Subdivisions have taken a foothold in Oak Bay, it appears that developers and Council are poised to move forward with Heritage Revitalization Agreement (HRA) Developments. Three such developments were presented at the Council COW Meeting last Monday night. The Municipal Planning Report indicated HRA’s, “take precedence over other relevant bylaws such as a zoning Bylaw”. In effect this means developers are allowed much more “leeway” to override our municipal zoning, thereby eliminating any included community and neighbouring property protections. This certainly is the case in the Brighton/Foul Bay Rd HRA proposal: in this subdivision development application the existing home is not even on the designated heritage register. Additionally the proposal calls for:
- A 5 lot subdivision when the current zoning only allows three lots.
- A plan to move the “considered” heritage house to the rear of the lot and site it sideways where it will not be seen from Foul Bay Road.
- The new buildings are presented as four 2600 sq ft, $1.4 million “family” houses,
- Converting the “revitalized heritage” house into a fourplex - consisting of 4 secondary suites .
A Council member commented that the 4 secondary suite concept in the “converted, revitalized, out of sight”, existing, heritage-type house was consistent with the Official Community Plan, so he did not have a problem with approval. However, he failed to point out the Official Community Plan (OCP) states: “secondary suites are only to be considered in consultation with the public” and Infill Zoning revision requirements should be: “related to house sizes, relationship to adjacent houses and yards, access to units, off street parking”.
The same should apply to heritage house conversions, if and when approved by a zoning change – not a unilateral spot zoning change decided solely by Council. Eliminating zoning and parking requirements will almost surely reduce the property values of adjacent existing homes.
Neighbours and a Council member made the following points:
- Too much development for this size of lot: a development with backyards would be more appropriate.
- Parking is prohibited on Foul Bay Rd at that location. As many homes in the region have two cars, where would visitors, suite renters and the overflow park?
- If the four members of Council, who have prioritized suite legalization, change the zoning bylaw to allow suites, each of the four new homes could then add a suite, resulting in much more densification and associated negative impacts.
- A neighbouring property owner stated that as it is planned to move the very large heritage house sideways to the very back of the property with no setback, they would be looking directly at the 30 ft west wall of a very large house. They would lose their privacy, views and sunlight, while the occupants of the four suites in the heritage house would look directly onto their green space.
A council member pointed out it would be nice if the “Heritage House” could actually be seen (a point also made by the Heritage Commission who also cautioned heritage houses should not be moved and questioned the feasibility of suite conversion). This raises the question “If a heritage house fell in the forest would anyone see it? In this situation as most of the trees on the lot would be removed, there would be no urban forest and the four new homes would block any heritage viewpoint from Foul Bay Road.
The developer stated he has been discussing this development with staff for 11 Months. This raises another question: why doesn’t Council have policy and guidelines in place for Bare Land Strata Subdivisions and Heritage Revitalization Agreement Developments? By now Council could certainly have included existing resident protections (as outlined in the Official Community Plan) as other communities have done. Oak Bay Watch was informed by the Victoria Planning Department that each large subdivision development is submitted to the appropriate Community Association. A number have been rejected on the basis of the developer’s trying to “pack too much on the lot”. While this development was sent back for revision the other two HRA’s were approved. There is no guarantee, however, that this subdivision would not be approved with minor changes, as per the Clive and Cadboro Bay/Bowker 43 condo development.
Read on for more Council COW agenda news.
At a 6:00 pm Council Meeting before the 7:00 pm Sept 18, COW Meeting four Council Members, Jenson, Ney, Croft and Kirby voted to:
“Undertake the Regulation of Secondary Suites”
The same four Councillors have previously prioritized and allocated considerable tax dollars for this significant densification objective over the protests of the other three Council Members Murdoch, Brathwaite and Zhelka who voted against.
A Council Resolution by Councillor Braithwaite:
- THAT staff be directed to arrange a date and venue in November to hold a Town Hall meeting, AND;
- THAT the Community Engagement Task Force be invited to bring, for consideration at the next Committee of the Whole, any recommendations they feel may improve that meeting’s effectiveness.
This may be a good opportunity to question Councillors why they are not prioritizing community objectives such as our aging infrastructure, keeping costs in check, sharing core services and protecting existing resident’s interests. They could also perhaps explain how the negative impacts of their many over-development initiatives are going to be addressed to satisfy the Official Community Plan (page 77 4.3.1 Housing Objective #1
The danger for the Community with all these Council development initiatives is that Council have no overall housing plan, have not provided any information on how they plan to control growth and deal with the negative impacts inherent in their many development objectives. As indicated, Council have not announced any policy and guidelines for the Planning Department to follow with these subdivisions but if they have, it is apparent they are not likely in the public interest or they would have been published. Note: Oak Bay does not routinely carry out environmental studies on Bare Land Strata or HRA subdivisions. Yet the ecological impacts on the urban forest and infrastructure are significant - with the amount of tree cutting and paving which are permitted at almost every Council meeting. .
It is still a mystery why Council disbanded the resident Environmental and Traffic Committees at the start of their term. It has become clear that, at this early stage, they started to prioritize over-development. While they did place one member with environmental expertise on the Advisory Planning Commission, environmental impacts are rarely discussed at Commission meetings, and public input including submissions is shut out. At a recent Advisory Planning Commission meeting, regarding a King George Terrace, Bare Land Strata Subdivision proposal, an environmental report was required as a shoreline area was involved. However the developer-generated environmental report was denied to the Commission member with the environmental expertise. The development was recommended to Council.
There have been requests by the public during the three years this Council has been in office for the re-establishment of what should be compulsory, regulatory, resident-input Committees, but to no avail. Due to the type of development going on and planned, a new initiative for the revival of the Environmental and Traffic Committees has been spearheaded by Councillor Zhelka and some very reputable, concerned members of the Community: however to date, there have been no takers on Council.
*******Please help us continue to provide you with information about Community concerns and Council decisions and actions. Oak Bay Watch members also help community groups with their specific development concerns. Donate to Oak Bay Watch - even $5 or $10 dollars provides expenses for door- to- door handouts and helps us maintain our website. Oak Bay Watch is committed to ensuring the Community gets the full range of information on budget, governance and all key development issues – a well informed opinion cannot be made without this.
(Please use Donate Button at bottom of oakbaywatch.com Home Page)
Keep informed please sign up for our newsletter – bottom of Newsletter Menu Item.