Report: Council Meeting – Wednesday, February 13, 2019
The public consultation issues that were of concern to residents had two common themes: the lack of transparency and impact on a natural resource.
Newsletter – February 16, 2019
Residential Subdivisions: Fair Street, York & Prospect Place, Beach Drive - Could your street be next?
Land Assembly Subdivisions -Subdivisions:Continued – see Oak Bay Watch Newsletter February 4, 2019
Definition: “Land assembly is a process of forming a single site from a number of properties, typically for economic development purposes. ... Working with other stakeholders to combine contiguous properties and create a larger parcel of land that is more favourable for development projects. In some communities - especially in dense urban areas - site may not be conducive to the type of development or redevelopment desired by the community”.
In Oak Bay sub-dividing a large lot is one thing: – combining 2 or more lots to form a large lot and then sub-dividing it is another. This is especially the case when the District already has unresolved overbuilding, over-paving and tree loss problems. Land assembly to permit residential subdivisions opens up a whole range of opportunities for developers and speculators and unfortunately a whole range of problems for the community. Not the least of which is having not one but two overbuilt-houses squeezed in as your neighbours. "Block Busting” is another problem, as another subdivision can then be added to the neighbourhood as neighbors have the incentive to sell and move elsewhere to regain views, sunlight and privacy.
Oak Bay subdivisions and subdivision applications recently have been Heritage Revitalization or Bare Land Strata 4-lot subdivisions and there is very little policy and oversight in place for the Planning Department to follow. These types of subdivisions over-ride the Zoning Bylaw and have resulted in:
Therefore It is understandable why so many residents show up at Council meetings on the many developments that do not meet, or even come close to meeting these criteria. For Example, the Fair Street Bare Land strata (lot assembly) subdivision certainly did meet these criteria (see before & after Pictures Appendix #2).
While developers are in the profit-maximizing business, it’s up to the District Planning Department to protect the public interest by applying the OCP resident protections. To put so much over-built density on two lots that originally had two modest and much more affordable, single-family homes cannot contribute to the character and quality of the streetscape or be consistent with other well-developed landscapes in the neighbourhood. The Planning Department consistently support maximum profit development by recommending approval including those that include the obliteration of many precious trees.
The District’s Subdivision Application Form:
The form has two lists:
Obviously the “may be required” documents would depend on the circumstances of each application. However, a very important Development Data document, that certainly is necessary, has for some reason been placed on the "may be required" list. This document must be provided for every application as it defines all of the subdivision's built form (what the development will look like) when completed.
The Subdivision Process Application "Development Data" document(1 copy):
“This should be provided as a table that summarizes the proposed development, including but not limited to, site area, lot coverage, number of units, total floor area, floor area ratio, lot breadth, building height, occupiable height, roof height, open space locations, percent of hard surfacing in front / back-yards, and parking requirements”.
As indicated this document is not mandatory in the District’s Subdivision Application Process and has not been included in subdivision applications. Nevertheless, the District process makes it mandatory for the residents concerned to be asked their opinion on the subdivision application, and Council is asked to approve the application. Staff-recommended subdivisions (and perhaps variances) are approved without any idea of what the built areas and finished product will look like. Without this prior knowledge how could well-informed approval decisions be made and how is this in the public interest?
As indicated in the February 4, 2019 Oak Bay Watch Newsletter, New Westminster’s Initial Application Package and Council policy also requires “ Fully dimensional architectural drawings of the proposed project, drawn to ¼” scale. Must include, exterior elevations, cross sections, floor plans, geodetic elevations of all floors. Additional required information is “Proposed materials should be indicated on the exterior elevations” and, “Current photos of : building(s) (all elevations), also of the site and surrounding properties”. It is apparent New Westminster Council and their residents want to see, ahead of time, what they are getting before they approve it.
The District’s subdivision approval process gives the Approving Officer (who is also the Manager of Planning) most of the control over subdivision approvals. Perhaps this, and the lack of Council policy and direction is why some important documentation and information has not been provided to Council or the public. Also, Heritage Revitalization Agreement subdivisions are not referred to the Advisory Planning Commission but are referred to the Heritage Commission.
This is problematic as the Heritage Commission is mandated to provide oversight only on the Heritage aspect of the proposed HRA subdivision. With no policy or requirement for early-stage public input, other than the limited neighbour consultation by the developer, and the late-stage Council Committee of the Whole input opportunity, it is difficult to make sense of the often-repeated Council Statement, “there is ample opportunity for public input in the development process”. The lack of consultation opportunities has been brought to Council’s attention time and time again.
Oak Bay Watch Perspective and Suggested Solution
In keeping with the BC Ombudsperson’s Report findings the District committed to complying with the Local Government Act and Community Charter transparency requirements and also the “spirit of the legislation”. Not providing information and adequate public engagement opportunities for Heritage Revitalization Agreement subdivisions that over-ride the Zoning Bylaw, does not meet this commitment to the Ombudsperson. All Subdivisions should be and must be referred to the Advisory Planning Commission, not just those selected behind closed doors.
Public input and collaboration is very important to ensure the Official Community Plan resident protections and public interest requirements are met (see bullet point number 3 page #1)
Suggested Housing Option Solution:
The Official Community Plan (OCP) page 73 states: “many older residents do not wish to move into multi-unit residential complexes (e.g. the Bowker, and Clive) nor do they see duplexes, secondary suites as suitable options. Residents indicated they would prefer smaller one-level homes with a lot and small private garden”.
It seems to Oak Bay Watch, that, the District should not promote a Subdivision Process as precarious as lot assembly (see Appendix #3). It would be much better to promote the above “aging in place” preferred accommodation solution that would keep large lots separate and not combined for multi-family developments. Then allow a modest, single-storey "coach house" with a private garden at the back of each property behind the primary home. This would satisfy the above housing option suggested by the Official Community Plan and keep housing options more affordable.
The lots that have been used to create these land-assembly subdivisions are quite large: therefore using the same lot size could be used to control additional but zone-compliant units. This could be applied to prevent inappropriate infill development in the community. It was made known overwhelmingly by the many residents who attended the University of Victoria open-house meetings that the public do not want infill development everywhere. This would be a much better plan than the current overbuilt houses on subdivisions and elsewhere and large-scale over-massed multi-unit developments.
Also, this solution would provide a much better outcome for all concerned: a desirable downsizing, affordable housing option for seniors, protection for neighbors, compliance with the OCP, tree preservation, a much lower infrastructure impact and still provide a tidy profit for the developer.
This solution, and not joining the 2 lots , 644 and 638 Beach Drive to create such a large subdivision, would have preserved the large grove of (scenic-drive) trees and a heritage streetscape that contributed to Oak Bay’s character. This solution would also limit approval of multiple lots that allow over-building, neighbour impacts and developer maximum profit.
We now have 2 senior supervisory planning staff, one planner and a planning clerk as well as a Chief Administrative Officer who is also a qualified planner. Surely the necessary planning capacity is at hand to facilitate well-thought out zoning details. Otherwise, and it is Oak Bay Watch’s opinion, the current planning practice of supporting over-built lots with very expensive houses, and Council's approval of over-massed complex developments are incompatible with the Official Community Plan and its objective of maintaining Oak Bay’s heritage, green space and desirability.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*******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.
Appendix #1
The public consultation issues that were of concern to residents had two common themes: the lack of transparency and impact on a natural resource.
- A resident informed Council that building portable classrooms on the green space at Willows School has been confirmed. He stated there was limited consultation and besides taking away a significant amount of green space, surprisingly there was no acknowledgement of the increased traffic or required parking. This will only add to the already highly congested daily school routine that neighbours are currently experiencing.
- A number of members of the community voiced their opinion on the proposed sculpture to be located “sitting on a rock” in Oak Bay. Some excellent resident comments ranged from inappropriate, unacceptable, displacing much more attractive, at-rest wildlife, to a lack of community consultation. It has been pointed out that the sculpture (see Appendix #1) has a resemblance to a half human/half octopus character in Disney’s “The Little Mermaid” and could be a tourist attraction; particularly if an Oak Bay Disney Theme-Park is to follow.
Newsletter – February 16, 2019
Residential Subdivisions: Fair Street, York & Prospect Place, Beach Drive - Could your street be next?
Land Assembly Subdivisions -Subdivisions:Continued – see Oak Bay Watch Newsletter February 4, 2019
Definition: “Land assembly is a process of forming a single site from a number of properties, typically for economic development purposes. ... Working with other stakeholders to combine contiguous properties and create a larger parcel of land that is more favourable for development projects. In some communities - especially in dense urban areas - site may not be conducive to the type of development or redevelopment desired by the community”.
In Oak Bay sub-dividing a large lot is one thing: – combining 2 or more lots to form a large lot and then sub-dividing it is another. This is especially the case when the District already has unresolved overbuilding, over-paving and tree loss problems. Land assembly to permit residential subdivisions opens up a whole range of opportunities for developers and speculators and unfortunately a whole range of problems for the community. Not the least of which is having not one but two overbuilt-houses squeezed in as your neighbours. "Block Busting” is another problem, as another subdivision can then be added to the neighbourhood as neighbors have the incentive to sell and move elsewhere to regain views, sunlight and privacy.
Oak Bay subdivisions and subdivision applications recently have been Heritage Revitalization or Bare Land Strata 4-lot subdivisions and there is very little policy and oversight in place for the Planning Department to follow. These types of subdivisions over-ride the Zoning Bylaw and have resulted in:
- Additional tree loss as more paved surfaces are permitted,
- Additional run-off as more soil and vegetation is removed,
- More street parking as there is limited space on-site and
- A failure to consider important Official Community Plan (OCP) resident protections see Housing Objective (See page 77 4.3.1) “Support a modest expansion of housing within Oak Bay while addressing concerns such as tree protection, parking, traffic, noise, effects on other properties, and neighbourhood character”.
Therefore It is understandable why so many residents show up at Council meetings on the many developments that do not meet, or even come close to meeting these criteria. For Example, the Fair Street Bare Land strata (lot assembly) subdivision certainly did meet these criteria (see before & after Pictures Appendix #2).
While developers are in the profit-maximizing business, it’s up to the District Planning Department to protect the public interest by applying the OCP resident protections. To put so much over-built density on two lots that originally had two modest and much more affordable, single-family homes cannot contribute to the character and quality of the streetscape or be consistent with other well-developed landscapes in the neighbourhood. The Planning Department consistently support maximum profit development by recommending approval including those that include the obliteration of many precious trees.
The District’s Subdivision Application Form:
The form has two lists:
- One specifies the documents that may be required for the subdivision application and,
- The other lists documents that are required to process the application.
Obviously the “may be required” documents would depend on the circumstances of each application. However, a very important Development Data document, that certainly is necessary, has for some reason been placed on the "may be required" list. This document must be provided for every application as it defines all of the subdivision's built form (what the development will look like) when completed.
The Subdivision Process Application "Development Data" document(1 copy):
“This should be provided as a table that summarizes the proposed development, including but not limited to, site area, lot coverage, number of units, total floor area, floor area ratio, lot breadth, building height, occupiable height, roof height, open space locations, percent of hard surfacing in front / back-yards, and parking requirements”.
As indicated this document is not mandatory in the District’s Subdivision Application Process and has not been included in subdivision applications. Nevertheless, the District process makes it mandatory for the residents concerned to be asked their opinion on the subdivision application, and Council is asked to approve the application. Staff-recommended subdivisions (and perhaps variances) are approved without any idea of what the built areas and finished product will look like. Without this prior knowledge how could well-informed approval decisions be made and how is this in the public interest?
As indicated in the February 4, 2019 Oak Bay Watch Newsletter, New Westminster’s Initial Application Package and Council policy also requires “ Fully dimensional architectural drawings of the proposed project, drawn to ¼” scale. Must include, exterior elevations, cross sections, floor plans, geodetic elevations of all floors. Additional required information is “Proposed materials should be indicated on the exterior elevations” and, “Current photos of : building(s) (all elevations), also of the site and surrounding properties”. It is apparent New Westminster Council and their residents want to see, ahead of time, what they are getting before they approve it.
The District’s subdivision approval process gives the Approving Officer (who is also the Manager of Planning) most of the control over subdivision approvals. Perhaps this, and the lack of Council policy and direction is why some important documentation and information has not been provided to Council or the public. Also, Heritage Revitalization Agreement subdivisions are not referred to the Advisory Planning Commission but are referred to the Heritage Commission.
This is problematic as the Heritage Commission is mandated to provide oversight only on the Heritage aspect of the proposed HRA subdivision. With no policy or requirement for early-stage public input, other than the limited neighbour consultation by the developer, and the late-stage Council Committee of the Whole input opportunity, it is difficult to make sense of the often-repeated Council Statement, “there is ample opportunity for public input in the development process”. The lack of consultation opportunities has been brought to Council’s attention time and time again.
Oak Bay Watch Perspective and Suggested Solution
In keeping with the BC Ombudsperson’s Report findings the District committed to complying with the Local Government Act and Community Charter transparency requirements and also the “spirit of the legislation”. Not providing information and adequate public engagement opportunities for Heritage Revitalization Agreement subdivisions that over-ride the Zoning Bylaw, does not meet this commitment to the Ombudsperson. All Subdivisions should be and must be referred to the Advisory Planning Commission, not just those selected behind closed doors.
Public input and collaboration is very important to ensure the Official Community Plan resident protections and public interest requirements are met (see bullet point number 3 page #1)
Suggested Housing Option Solution:
The Official Community Plan (OCP) page 73 states: “many older residents do not wish to move into multi-unit residential complexes (e.g. the Bowker, and Clive) nor do they see duplexes, secondary suites as suitable options. Residents indicated they would prefer smaller one-level homes with a lot and small private garden”.
It seems to Oak Bay Watch, that, the District should not promote a Subdivision Process as precarious as lot assembly (see Appendix #3). It would be much better to promote the above “aging in place” preferred accommodation solution that would keep large lots separate and not combined for multi-family developments. Then allow a modest, single-storey "coach house" with a private garden at the back of each property behind the primary home. This would satisfy the above housing option suggested by the Official Community Plan and keep housing options more affordable.
The lots that have been used to create these land-assembly subdivisions are quite large: therefore using the same lot size could be used to control additional but zone-compliant units. This could be applied to prevent inappropriate infill development in the community. It was made known overwhelmingly by the many residents who attended the University of Victoria open-house meetings that the public do not want infill development everywhere. This would be a much better plan than the current overbuilt houses on subdivisions and elsewhere and large-scale over-massed multi-unit developments.
Also, this solution would provide a much better outcome for all concerned: a desirable downsizing, affordable housing option for seniors, protection for neighbors, compliance with the OCP, tree preservation, a much lower infrastructure impact and still provide a tidy profit for the developer.
This solution, and not joining the 2 lots , 644 and 638 Beach Drive to create such a large subdivision, would have preserved the large grove of (scenic-drive) trees and a heritage streetscape that contributed to Oak Bay’s character. This solution would also limit approval of multiple lots that allow over-building, neighbour impacts and developer maximum profit.
We now have 2 senior supervisory planning staff, one planner and a planning clerk as well as a Chief Administrative Officer who is also a qualified planner. Surely the necessary planning capacity is at hand to facilitate well-thought out zoning details. Otherwise, and it is Oak Bay Watch’s opinion, the current planning practice of supporting over-built lots with very expensive houses, and Council's approval of over-massed complex developments are incompatible with the Official Community Plan and its objective of maintaining Oak Bay’s heritage, green space and desirability.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*******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.
Appendix #1
Appendix #3
Planning Department Process Form Definition:
W h a t i s a S u b d i v i s i o n ? (Note: Land Assembly included*)
“Generally speaking, a subdivision refers to the process of creating new lots. Sometimes this means adjusting existing lots lines, *or it may mean creating two or more lots from an existing lot. Whether the lots are individually owned (fee simple) or share some of the property (strata), a subdivision application is required”.