Newsletter March 11, 2017 Council's (New) Backup Plan
.Oak Bay Watch Newsletter: Council’s (New) Backup Development Plan
Summary:
Council has ignored their 2016 Task Forces on Demolitions and Public Engagement and now has reneged on their commitment to include public input into the Residential Infill Planning Process. However, we should not be distracted by that. Instead we should take a long look at Council’s upcoming April 5th, 2017 5:00 p.m. Meeting and their decision to prioritize Infill Development. In recent meetings the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) was adamant that current staff resources and financial restrictions allow implementation of only one of the three infill options under consideration: basement suite legalization, duplex legalization or, an overarching housing strategy. The recommendation of the Advisory Planning Commission was that the starting point should be a Housing Strategy (an overall housing plan).
Two members of Council have recently stated that they have the votes to do whatever they want regarding Infill Development. Both members also indicated they cannot see what purpose an overall housing strategy will serve in achieving what they want to achieve (basement suite and duplex development) by the end of their term.
What should be most concerning to the Community is, that we are beyond the half way point of this Council's term, and Council has only held two, September 2016 (same day), limited public engagement sessions. These were facilitated by consultants: there was no Council leadership or significant presence. An overwhelming public response (criticizing the format, content and location) has resulted in a Council Infill Planning Process “Reset”. It is not clear who made this “Reset” decision or where it was made. Recently, however, it was announced that this “reset” as replacing the many scheduled comprehensive public engagement forums and the necessary surveys, and the collection of data & research. The replacements are to be the current Council's Infill Development priority choices: suites, duplexes and perhaps a housing strategy plan. Quite a definitive strategic “reversal”.
(Read More…) “Grounds for suspicion”
So are there reasons to distrust the Mayor & Council’s intentions?
Please see APPENDIX, for some Infill Development problem examples and impact information, which have not been provided by Council to date. There is no doubt there are benefits. However these are not referenced, as they are constantly provided by the Development & Real Estate Communities, at meetings and in the media, and by some Council members. Also since 2011 there has been significant development & real estate representation on resident zoning committees, the Advisory Design Panel, the Heritage Commission, a Demolition Task Force and the Advisory Planning Commission. These pro-development viewpoints have been voiced continually since Infill Development was “placed on the table” five years ago. It is therefore our opinion they are certainly not under-represented.
Additionally, throughout the Official Community Plan Renewal Process, and with Council’s Infill Development Planning Process, there have been a number of extensive meetings with development representatives - funded by the municipality. These across-the-table discussions have provided the development community with the opportunity to provide input from their specific perspective and for their particular benefit. Unfortunately the same open-forum meeting opportunities have not been provided for residents to hold two-way conversations with Council on Infill.
As indicated, it is noticeable that during Council’s 3 minute public participation periods there have been no answers provided to the public’s questions or responses to the public’s concerns or submissions. This was clearly and firmly pointed out in a 2016 presentation to Council by the 2016 Mayor’s Public Engagement Task Force. Could this be why the Task Force is sitting out Council’s 2017/ 2018 Priority Plans?
Not to belabour the point however, it is also noticeable that since the current Council took office, more than 450 days ago, there have been only two community Infill Development meetings. They were held on the same day in September 2016.
A Council media announcement billed these meetings as “Starting the infill conversation”. Almost all speakers, at the well-attended meetings, voiced their concerns against Infill Development in single-family neighbourhoods and provided impact-based reasoning why they held this viewpoint. It appears that because of this input, Council has now ended the infill dialogue abruptly
Alternatively, Council’s implemented a “backup plan” and has reinvented and revamped their Infill Strategy Process, finally coming out in the open and making it clear how they intend to start densifying Oak Bay. Their first stage is to legalize basement suites and duplexes in Oak Bay’s single-family neighborhoods. It is one of their main 2017/ 2018 priorities. This is a strong indicator that: the majority of Council is shutting out Community input, disregarding resident protections and will continue to spend significant tax dollars to satisfy their densification objectives.
Otherwise why would they not sit down with the Community, see what is acceptable and explain how residents will be protected from noise, traffic, tax increases, vacation rental by owner and the many other infill abuses?
The bad news for the public is:
However the good news for the public is:
*******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. Please 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)
APPENDIX
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7nxxQvaly6_aEE3TnNHRUdMc1E/view
http://www.durhamregion.com/news-story/3493763-north-oshawa-homeowners-sue-city-over-student-housing/
http://www.durhamregion.com/community-story/3502645-angry-oshawa-homeowners-take-student-housing-issue-to-the-courtroom/
“She's one of numerous homeowners who are fed up with ongoing problems of noise, parking, parties, garbage and vandalism. Acting on their behalf, four members of the Cedar Valley Home Owners Association of north Oshawa are suing the city in a bid to reclaim their neighbourhood”.
"We're not asking for money," says association president Emil Hanzelka. "We want this neighbourhood returned to single-family homes, which is what it was built for."
.Oak Bay Watch Newsletter: Council’s (New) Backup Development Plan
Summary:
Council has ignored their 2016 Task Forces on Demolitions and Public Engagement and now has reneged on their commitment to include public input into the Residential Infill Planning Process. However, we should not be distracted by that. Instead we should take a long look at Council’s upcoming April 5th, 2017 5:00 p.m. Meeting and their decision to prioritize Infill Development. In recent meetings the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) was adamant that current staff resources and financial restrictions allow implementation of only one of the three infill options under consideration: basement suite legalization, duplex legalization or, an overarching housing strategy. The recommendation of the Advisory Planning Commission was that the starting point should be a Housing Strategy (an overall housing plan).
Two members of Council have recently stated that they have the votes to do whatever they want regarding Infill Development. Both members also indicated they cannot see what purpose an overall housing strategy will serve in achieving what they want to achieve (basement suite and duplex development) by the end of their term.
What should be most concerning to the Community is, that we are beyond the half way point of this Council's term, and Council has only held two, September 2016 (same day), limited public engagement sessions. These were facilitated by consultants: there was no Council leadership or significant presence. An overwhelming public response (criticizing the format, content and location) has resulted in a Council Infill Planning Process “Reset”. It is not clear who made this “Reset” decision or where it was made. Recently, however, it was announced that this “reset” as replacing the many scheduled comprehensive public engagement forums and the necessary surveys, and the collection of data & research. The replacements are to be the current Council's Infill Development priority choices: suites, duplexes and perhaps a housing strategy plan. Quite a definitive strategic “reversal”.
(Read More…) “Grounds for suspicion”
So are there reasons to distrust the Mayor & Council’s intentions?
- No neighbourhood basement suite & duplex potential problems and impact information has been provided to the public so far - (see APPENDIX - Impacts).
- Council's last two meeting agendas and their subsequent actions were obviously pro-development.
- Some Councilors' continually repeat only pro-infill development benefits.
- The significant tax expenditures associated with development have already used up substantial staff time & resources and expensive Consultant involvement, to carry out Council’s densification goals – more is prioritized.
- The fact that only a slight majority of Council and the Mayor are in favor of prioritizing Infill Development (a 4-3 Council vote count).
- The many variance approvals that add density and massing to an already over-generous Zoning Bylaw. A bylaw that corrected only slightly, a major over-density mistake.
- There has been no indication that the many existing resident protections in the Official Community Plan (OCP) will be implemented.
- The majority of Council’s stated fear that they had better get neighbourhood Infill Development ratified while they still hold office.
- Council’s limiting resident input to 3 minutes each of a 20 minute public participation period, with no Council response. Developers are allowed unrestricted time and discussions with Council to justify their development proposals or variance requests - which are rarely rejected.
- The fact that Council and the Mayor’s priorities omitted infrastructure upgrading; zoning to limit demolitions & tree loss; plans to share core services with other municipalities; or any method to measure their commitment to the OCP's 0.05% annual growth rate.
Please see APPENDIX, for some Infill Development problem examples and impact information, which have not been provided by Council to date. There is no doubt there are benefits. However these are not referenced, as they are constantly provided by the Development & Real Estate Communities, at meetings and in the media, and by some Council members. Also since 2011 there has been significant development & real estate representation on resident zoning committees, the Advisory Design Panel, the Heritage Commission, a Demolition Task Force and the Advisory Planning Commission. These pro-development viewpoints have been voiced continually since Infill Development was “placed on the table” five years ago. It is therefore our opinion they are certainly not under-represented.
Additionally, throughout the Official Community Plan Renewal Process, and with Council’s Infill Development Planning Process, there have been a number of extensive meetings with development representatives - funded by the municipality. These across-the-table discussions have provided the development community with the opportunity to provide input from their specific perspective and for their particular benefit. Unfortunately the same open-forum meeting opportunities have not been provided for residents to hold two-way conversations with Council on Infill.
As indicated, it is noticeable that during Council’s 3 minute public participation periods there have been no answers provided to the public’s questions or responses to the public’s concerns or submissions. This was clearly and firmly pointed out in a 2016 presentation to Council by the 2016 Mayor’s Public Engagement Task Force. Could this be why the Task Force is sitting out Council’s 2017/ 2018 Priority Plans?
Not to belabour the point however, it is also noticeable that since the current Council took office, more than 450 days ago, there have been only two community Infill Development meetings. They were held on the same day in September 2016.
A Council media announcement billed these meetings as “Starting the infill conversation”. Almost all speakers, at the well-attended meetings, voiced their concerns against Infill Development in single-family neighbourhoods and provided impact-based reasoning why they held this viewpoint. It appears that because of this input, Council has now ended the infill dialogue abruptly
Alternatively, Council’s implemented a “backup plan” and has reinvented and revamped their Infill Strategy Process, finally coming out in the open and making it clear how they intend to start densifying Oak Bay. Their first stage is to legalize basement suites and duplexes in Oak Bay’s single-family neighborhoods. It is one of their main 2017/ 2018 priorities. This is a strong indicator that: the majority of Council is shutting out Community input, disregarding resident protections and will continue to spend significant tax dollars to satisfy their densification objectives.
Otherwise why would they not sit down with the Community, see what is acceptable and explain how residents will be protected from noise, traffic, tax increases, vacation rental by owner and the many other infill abuses?
The bad news for the public is:
- Council has ignored the Official Community Plan’s commitment to “consider”, with residents, whether or not Infill Development in our single-family neighbourhoods is a good idea for Oak Bay: in addition to all the scheduled Community engagement opportunities they promised. There is now no indication that any open, future discussion will take place, nor will any other input be considered (e.g. resident submissions, letters to the Oak Bay News etc).
- As often as not, the Council and the Mayor votes in favour of a development agenda are 4 - 3 with the same four Council members casting deciding votes in favour of Development and Real Estate Industry objectives, this de facto, is determining the future of Oak Bay.
However the good news for the public is:
- There will be legislated community engagement. Although this will not be until the early fall 2018 Municipal Election. However, there will be a clear indication then of what the general community's viewpoints are and, how they feel about Council and the Mayor’s development agenda and actions.
*******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. Please 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)
APPENDIX
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7nxxQvaly6_aEE3TnNHRUdMc1E/view
http://www.durhamregion.com/news-story/3493763-north-oshawa-homeowners-sue-city-over-student-housing/
http://www.durhamregion.com/community-story/3502645-angry-oshawa-homeowners-take-student-housing-issue-to-the-courtroom/
“She's one of numerous homeowners who are fed up with ongoing problems of noise, parking, parties, garbage and vandalism. Acting on their behalf, four members of the Cedar Valley Home Owners Association of north Oshawa are suing the city in a bid to reclaim their neighbourhood”.
"We're not asking for money," says association president Emil Hanzelka. "We want this neighbourhood returned to single-family homes, which is what it was built for."