Newsletter July 14, 2019
Community Heritage and Heritage Revitalization Agreements
Public Hearing- Newport Heritage Revitalization Agreement Development Application scheduled for 6:00 pm.
(See Appendix 1 for a full account of the District’s lack of public consideration when scheduling some Council Meetings and Public Hearings).
The Public Hearing lasted for approximately 2½ hours, with many residents expressing their viewpoints. The majority were neighbours speaking in opposition to the development, mainly due to its impact on the 15 ft laneway-wide Linkleas Avenue – also used as a walkway. Residents reported an 8-1 ratio of neighbour opposition to the project.
Highly unusual were a number of people not directly affected yet, eager to have this development proceed. Several of them openly criticized the neighbours for organizing support to protect the Linkleas heritage laneway and prevent a predicted number of new applications. Especially noticeable were those supporting the development application did not criticize the Applicant for providing a misleading public consultation report stating most neighbours were supportive.
The Planning Department also played down this discrepancy. It reported Public Input as, “The applicants have indicated that the majority of neighbours consulted were generally enthusiastic about the combination of preserving Logie Lea and building a smaller home, but other neighbours expressed concern”.
There has been concerns raised about inappropriately using a Heritage Revitalization Agreement (HRA) as an end-run on the Zoning Bylaw. In this situation should the HRA be used simply to divide a large lot into two separate lots with a house on each. This is particularly disturbing with all the controversy about the zoning bylaw favoring development. A previous long-term Mayor took the time to present his experienced advice expressing caution when approving development applications.
Imposing one zone on another (spot zoning) especially one that allows more density and therefore more profit, seems to make a mockery of the purpose of having specific zone specifications in the first place.
Note: Even with a superimposed more liberal zone a number of variances were necessary to make the HRA fit.
Oak Bay Watch Perspective
There would have been far less opposition and much more support for adding a “real” aging in place, less invasive townhome on the property. Not as much profit, but nevertheless a decent return.
The argument voiced at the public meeting about fears of demolition and building a big box house seems unfounded as the current home is very large with a square (box type) design. In any event this lends even more legitimacy to the repeated request to change the Zoning Bylaw back to when it prevented mega homes (many low quality) being built on small lots.
In our opinion the District of Oak Bay must ensure Heritage Revitalization Agreements are used appropriately and that they balance both public and private benefits. On this basis it seems to us the 602 Newport HRA Application should get another look. The public benefit is shaky at best, with two different versions of the size of the new home (1,900 vs 2,600 sq ft). And the potential for significant future harm to Linkleas Avenue walkway is significant. We have only a certain number of greenways and walkways and if they are not protected they cannot be replaced.
------------------------------------------------------------------
*******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 “based on facts” newsletter – bottom of Newsletter Menu Item.
Appendix #1
The 602 Newport Public Hearing lasted for 2 ½ hours, 1½ hours past the 7:00 p.m. Council meeting start time. The Council Hearing included several controversial time-consuming agenda items.
It is not clear who is scheduling Public Hearings and setting Council agendas. However, Public Hearing scheduling is problematic so there should be little doubt some practical thinking is required. It was obvious from the prior number of submissions and neighbour opposition at two previous Council meetings this development application was controversial. It was apparent from previous resident attendance and submissions there would be many speakers in addition to another lengthy applicant presentation.
As should have been anticipated, the Public Hearing dragged on for over two hours delaying the following 7:00 pm Council meeting by almost 90 minutes. If this were not bad enough, Council had a full agenda that included several time consuming controversial items and a number of Bylaws. Councillors were expected to plough through all this, then consider Item #13's over two-dozen presentations that were provided in the 602 Newport HRA Public Hearing, and then arrive at a well thought out decision. Home
An even worse example of Council’s Public Hearing scheduling occurred on September 17, 2018. A development on Runnymede Avenue was being considered beginning at 6:00 pm and this lasted four hours - 3 hours past the 7:00 pm Council meeting start-time. Staff must have anticipated a jam-packed resident attendance as the municipal hallway had additional seating in place. However, the conclusion of this meeting was a failure to follow a legislated procedure resulting in the meeting being cancelled and an entirely new pubic meeting rescheduled.
What is equally puzzling besides little public consideration, is Council meetings are often held with very light agendas without controversial items.
Community Heritage and Heritage Revitalization Agreements
Public Hearing- Newport Heritage Revitalization Agreement Development Application scheduled for 6:00 pm.
(See Appendix 1 for a full account of the District’s lack of public consideration when scheduling some Council Meetings and Public Hearings).
The Public Hearing lasted for approximately 2½ hours, with many residents expressing their viewpoints. The majority were neighbours speaking in opposition to the development, mainly due to its impact on the 15 ft laneway-wide Linkleas Avenue – also used as a walkway. Residents reported an 8-1 ratio of neighbour opposition to the project.
Highly unusual were a number of people not directly affected yet, eager to have this development proceed. Several of them openly criticized the neighbours for organizing support to protect the Linkleas heritage laneway and prevent a predicted number of new applications. Especially noticeable were those supporting the development application did not criticize the Applicant for providing a misleading public consultation report stating most neighbours were supportive.
The Planning Department also played down this discrepancy. It reported Public Input as, “The applicants have indicated that the majority of neighbours consulted were generally enthusiastic about the combination of preserving Logie Lea and building a smaller home, but other neighbours expressed concern”.
There has been concerns raised about inappropriately using a Heritage Revitalization Agreement (HRA) as an end-run on the Zoning Bylaw. In this situation should the HRA be used simply to divide a large lot into two separate lots with a house on each. This is particularly disturbing with all the controversy about the zoning bylaw favoring development. A previous long-term Mayor took the time to present his experienced advice expressing caution when approving development applications.
Imposing one zone on another (spot zoning) especially one that allows more density and therefore more profit, seems to make a mockery of the purpose of having specific zone specifications in the first place.
Note: Even with a superimposed more liberal zone a number of variances were necessary to make the HRA fit.
Oak Bay Watch Perspective
There would have been far less opposition and much more support for adding a “real” aging in place, less invasive townhome on the property. Not as much profit, but nevertheless a decent return.
The argument voiced at the public meeting about fears of demolition and building a big box house seems unfounded as the current home is very large with a square (box type) design. In any event this lends even more legitimacy to the repeated request to change the Zoning Bylaw back to when it prevented mega homes (many low quality) being built on small lots.
In our opinion the District of Oak Bay must ensure Heritage Revitalization Agreements are used appropriately and that they balance both public and private benefits. On this basis it seems to us the 602 Newport HRA Application should get another look. The public benefit is shaky at best, with two different versions of the size of the new home (1,900 vs 2,600 sq ft). And the potential for significant future harm to Linkleas Avenue walkway is significant. We have only a certain number of greenways and walkways and if they are not protected they cannot be replaced.
------------------------------------------------------------------
*******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 “based on facts” newsletter – bottom of Newsletter Menu Item.
Appendix #1
The 602 Newport Public Hearing lasted for 2 ½ hours, 1½ hours past the 7:00 p.m. Council meeting start time. The Council Hearing included several controversial time-consuming agenda items.
It is not clear who is scheduling Public Hearings and setting Council agendas. However, Public Hearing scheduling is problematic so there should be little doubt some practical thinking is required. It was obvious from the prior number of submissions and neighbour opposition at two previous Council meetings this development application was controversial. It was apparent from previous resident attendance and submissions there would be many speakers in addition to another lengthy applicant presentation.
As should have been anticipated, the Public Hearing dragged on for over two hours delaying the following 7:00 pm Council meeting by almost 90 minutes. If this were not bad enough, Council had a full agenda that included several time consuming controversial items and a number of Bylaws. Councillors were expected to plough through all this, then consider Item #13's over two-dozen presentations that were provided in the 602 Newport HRA Public Hearing, and then arrive at a well thought out decision. Home
An even worse example of Council’s Public Hearing scheduling occurred on September 17, 2018. A development on Runnymede Avenue was being considered beginning at 6:00 pm and this lasted four hours - 3 hours past the 7:00 pm Council meeting start-time. Staff must have anticipated a jam-packed resident attendance as the municipal hallway had additional seating in place. However, the conclusion of this meeting was a failure to follow a legislated procedure resulting in the meeting being cancelled and an entirely new pubic meeting rescheduled.
What is equally puzzling besides little public consideration, is Council meetings are often held with very light agendas without controversial items.