Home Newsletter: October 25, 2020 Subdivision Proposal Controversy
This newsletter is an eye-opener, is very informative and will explain why the 785 Island Road Subdivision Process was very problematic and is important for residents to be aware of and understand?
Part ll of the 785 Island Road Problematic Process.
As indicated in our October 11, 2020 Newsletter the 785 Island Road Subdivision application was another and typical example that has exposed so many unanswered questions and concerns that residents have voiced about the Planning Department’s development application process.
There is no doubt the number of subdivision and complex development applications that have upset so many neighbours and residents is growing: * The King George Terrace 4-lot Subdivision ; the Oak Bay United Church Condominium Proposal; the York Place Heritage Revitalization Agreement Subdivision (HRA); the 602 Newport/ Linkleas HRA 2-lot Subdivision; the 638 Beach Drive land assembly and 4-lot HRA Subdivision and now the 785 Island Road Subdivision Application. *Some applications have been denied by Council.
Unanswered Planning Department development application questions:
785 Island Road
Planning Department reports indicate that this Subdivision Development Application/ Heritage Revitalization Agreement (HRA), was submitted in 2018 – no date was provided. The Developer stated the Planning Department recommended the HRA subdivision.
There were environmental, infrastructure, access, blasting, tree and green space removal issues from the outset. It was obvious that these had to be taken into account fairly quickly, therefore why was this development application not moved forward in an expedient manner? Why was the process delayed and drawn out for over 2 years resulting in the Planning Department’s not recommending their HRA Subdivision?
A neighbourhood meeting presentation was held in early 2019 by the developer prior to his July 9, 2019 Heritage Commission presentation. Oak Bay Watch has been informed that there was a lot of neighbour dissent at the neighbourhood presentation. The proposal was for a new 3000 sq. ft plus house and access to the second lot, a new detached single/double garage as well as an addition to the existing heritage house. It has also been reported that the heritage house is in a state of serious disrepair and there are access and fire department safety issues.
It was brought to the Heritage Commission on July 9, 2018 for their consideration. Oak Bay Watch has also been informed that the applicant, Amity Construction, told the Commission that most neighbours supported the subdivision. This was inaccurate: most neighbours opposed the application proposal.
A member of the public took notes at the Heritage Commission meeting and was very concerned about important information that was left out of the minutes. They were also concerned about: “There were a number of misrepresentations by the applicant. He claimed the neighbourhood was overwhelmingly in favour of the project, and the most affected neighbour was supporting them fully. This cannot be true, as I am the most affected neighbour on the subdivision by far, and have always been against the project. I did raise my hand when I heard inaccurate information, but the Commission meetings do not accept input by the public”.
This resident explained how many other important points by Heritage Commissioners were left out of the Minutes. This is yet another instance where a developer has reported inaccurate neighbour engagement information.
The main problems with this HRA Development Application are:
The Planning Department's failure to initially identify and address: the excessive infrastructure issues, the $400,000 service costs, the access and blasting requirements, the extensive new lot coverage and tree loss involved (see picture appendix #1 ) not fully explaining the heritage house interior neglect, the upgrading costs and the garden neglect over the past several years. Surely these would have been discussed and considered in the Planning Department’s early meetings with the developer? Did the Planning Department verify the proponents claim as to the opinion of the neighbours?
Did it view the interior of the house? Why does the Planning Department discourage site visits by the Heritage Commissioners?
The Planning Departments 785 Island Road 2-year HRA subdivision development application process leaves a lot to be desired, not the least of which is the District‘s Approving Officer role (see Oak Bay Watch Perspective).
Oak Bay Watch Perspective
It seems to us this project had so many obvious initial problems and issues (environmental, infrastructure, financial, fire safety, additional lot coverage tree loss financial and access considerations that it should never have reached the advanced 2-year, Bylaw Draft, Heritage Protection Order stage.
Note: District Approving Officer: The Municipal Website Planning Department page, Subdivision category explains: “If an application is complete, the Approving Officer will conduct a review of the application if it appears that the proposed subdivision can move forward”.
The problem is: The District’s Manager of Planning is the Approving Officer. She may well have been involved in discussions with the developer in the initial and later development application stages. She certainly would have viewed the plans and, as a supervisor, would have been involved in the decision to recommend the Heritage Revitalization Subdivision Agreement as well as moving the development application forward to the Heritage Commission and beyond.
It is not clear then how the Manager of Planning, in her oversight role as approving officer, can be objective and at arms length when an application is to move forward, particularly when considering all of her earlier participation in the Development Application.
Isn’t this like a building inspector being the building contractor and inspecting their own work or a financial officer being the auditor and providing oversight and an opinion on their books and financial records? Oak Bay Watch and others have made the case on several occasions that the Planning and Approving Officer functions must be separated.
The other major problem is: at the September 28, 2020 Council Meeting the motion to further approve the 785 Island Road (forced) Heritage Designation Bylaw was only narrowly averted by a 3-3 vote tie. The Director of Planning’s report stated, “The Director advised that staff contacted the owner, and the response was that they did not wish to consent to the designation and would be seeking financial compensation for any reduction in market value resulting from the designation”.
However,
The Local Government Act
Section 612 (1) Heritage Designation Procedure states:
612 (1) Before a heritage designation bylaw is adopted, the local government must hold a public hearing on the proposed bylaw for the purpose of allowing affected parties and the general public to make representations respecting matters contained in the proposed bylaw.(5) The local government must have a report prepared regarding the property to be designated that includes information respecting the following matters:
(c) the compatibility of conservation with lawful uses of the property and adjoining lands;
(d) the condition and economic viability of the property;
(e) the possible need for financial or other support to enable appropriate conservation.
The developer compensation would have been significant in this case given the potential subdivision profits involved. However, the question is: If the financial information that, legislatively, had to be provided to the Public anyway at the late Heritage Designation Bylaw approval stage, why was this important information planned to be provided at the very last stage, and last minute? Why could it not have been considered and brought to Council’s and the public’s attention much much earlier?
It was pointed out at a Council meeting that Oak Bay has many comparable 785 Island Road homes with not nearly the inherent problems (perhaps other than the state of the infrastructure). Saving them though a heritage designation bylaw process would not be possible as there is nowhere near the substantial funding necessary to protect even a handful. With the number of planning staff at hand wouldn’t this have been a consideration before recommending a Heritage Revitalization Subdivision for this development application?
In Conclusion: Residents are repeatedly bringing the same Planning Department Development policy and process concerns to Council. These have been recognised by Council since 2017. Often development proposal information is hard to come by for members of the public. As indicated by some of the failed development examples provided above, a tremendous amount of resident, staff, and Council time and expense is being wasted. Council’s relationship with the general public is being negatively impacted.
Meanwhile, more and more administration staff are being hired. How many of these discovered-late, obviously unacceptable developments is it going to take before Council takes corrective action?
“Nothing is inevitable if you are paying attention” Oak Bay Watch
*******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 and sign up for our newsletter – bottom of Newsletter Menu Item.
Appendix #1
Please note: 785 Island Road's L-Shaped Lot, the number of trees on the property and that the required access and exit to 2nd subdivided lot's proposed 3,000 sq ft plus 2nd House would be on Plumer. Therefore not only would any additional 2nd lot parking due to the Plumber's limited size be an issue, but so would the number of trees and green space that would be lost due to additional lot coverage
This newsletter is an eye-opener, is very informative and will explain why the 785 Island Road Subdivision Process was very problematic and is important for residents to be aware of and understand?
Part ll of the 785 Island Road Problematic Process.
As indicated in our October 11, 2020 Newsletter the 785 Island Road Subdivision application was another and typical example that has exposed so many unanswered questions and concerns that residents have voiced about the Planning Department’s development application process.
There is no doubt the number of subdivision and complex development applications that have upset so many neighbours and residents is growing: * The King George Terrace 4-lot Subdivision ; the Oak Bay United Church Condominium Proposal; the York Place Heritage Revitalization Agreement Subdivision (HRA); the 602 Newport/ Linkleas HRA 2-lot Subdivision; the 638 Beach Drive land assembly and 4-lot HRA Subdivision and now the 785 Island Road Subdivision Application. *Some applications have been denied by Council.
Unanswered Planning Department development application questions:
- Given the many resident concerns and complaints about the late stage and limited public engagement opportunities and the delayed release of mandatory information to the public (see 785 Island Rd. - Local Government Act public meeting information (Page #3 last paragraph) - why hasn’t this information been provided?
- What information the District is, should be but is not considering?
- What information is being presented to the public and what has been withheld?
- Why wasn’t the Fire Department safety concerns or Arborist’s Report provided to Council and the Public?
- Who creates and who edits the Advisory Commissions minutes? There have been a number of concerns about important application (agenda item discussion) information being left out of Commission meeting minutes.
- How much Council, staff and resident time is being wasted on a number of inappropriate Council-denied development applications and other issues? Valuable time and expense could and should have been used to address resident priorities that have been expressed over-and-over again and must be prioritized. Infrastructure, property tax control, correcting the broken zoning bylaw and effective public engagement are examples of what should be prioritized ahead of over-development.
785 Island Road
Planning Department reports indicate that this Subdivision Development Application/ Heritage Revitalization Agreement (HRA), was submitted in 2018 – no date was provided. The Developer stated the Planning Department recommended the HRA subdivision.
There were environmental, infrastructure, access, blasting, tree and green space removal issues from the outset. It was obvious that these had to be taken into account fairly quickly, therefore why was this development application not moved forward in an expedient manner? Why was the process delayed and drawn out for over 2 years resulting in the Planning Department’s not recommending their HRA Subdivision?
A neighbourhood meeting presentation was held in early 2019 by the developer prior to his July 9, 2019 Heritage Commission presentation. Oak Bay Watch has been informed that there was a lot of neighbour dissent at the neighbourhood presentation. The proposal was for a new 3000 sq. ft plus house and access to the second lot, a new detached single/double garage as well as an addition to the existing heritage house. It has also been reported that the heritage house is in a state of serious disrepair and there are access and fire department safety issues.
It was brought to the Heritage Commission on July 9, 2018 for their consideration. Oak Bay Watch has also been informed that the applicant, Amity Construction, told the Commission that most neighbours supported the subdivision. This was inaccurate: most neighbours opposed the application proposal.
A member of the public took notes at the Heritage Commission meeting and was very concerned about important information that was left out of the minutes. They were also concerned about: “There were a number of misrepresentations by the applicant. He claimed the neighbourhood was overwhelmingly in favour of the project, and the most affected neighbour was supporting them fully. This cannot be true, as I am the most affected neighbour on the subdivision by far, and have always been against the project. I did raise my hand when I heard inaccurate information, but the Commission meetings do not accept input by the public”.
This resident explained how many other important points by Heritage Commissioners were left out of the Minutes. This is yet another instance where a developer has reported inaccurate neighbour engagement information.
The main problems with this HRA Development Application are:
The Planning Department's failure to initially identify and address: the excessive infrastructure issues, the $400,000 service costs, the access and blasting requirements, the extensive new lot coverage and tree loss involved (see picture appendix #1 ) not fully explaining the heritage house interior neglect, the upgrading costs and the garden neglect over the past several years. Surely these would have been discussed and considered in the Planning Department’s early meetings with the developer? Did the Planning Department verify the proponents claim as to the opinion of the neighbours?
Did it view the interior of the house? Why does the Planning Department discourage site visits by the Heritage Commissioners?
The Planning Departments 785 Island Road 2-year HRA subdivision development application process leaves a lot to be desired, not the least of which is the District‘s Approving Officer role (see Oak Bay Watch Perspective).
Oak Bay Watch Perspective
It seems to us this project had so many obvious initial problems and issues (environmental, infrastructure, financial, fire safety, additional lot coverage tree loss financial and access considerations that it should never have reached the advanced 2-year, Bylaw Draft, Heritage Protection Order stage.
Note: District Approving Officer: The Municipal Website Planning Department page, Subdivision category explains: “If an application is complete, the Approving Officer will conduct a review of the application if it appears that the proposed subdivision can move forward”.
The problem is: The District’s Manager of Planning is the Approving Officer. She may well have been involved in discussions with the developer in the initial and later development application stages. She certainly would have viewed the plans and, as a supervisor, would have been involved in the decision to recommend the Heritage Revitalization Subdivision Agreement as well as moving the development application forward to the Heritage Commission and beyond.
It is not clear then how the Manager of Planning, in her oversight role as approving officer, can be objective and at arms length when an application is to move forward, particularly when considering all of her earlier participation in the Development Application.
Isn’t this like a building inspector being the building contractor and inspecting their own work or a financial officer being the auditor and providing oversight and an opinion on their books and financial records? Oak Bay Watch and others have made the case on several occasions that the Planning and Approving Officer functions must be separated.
The other major problem is: at the September 28, 2020 Council Meeting the motion to further approve the 785 Island Road (forced) Heritage Designation Bylaw was only narrowly averted by a 3-3 vote tie. The Director of Planning’s report stated, “The Director advised that staff contacted the owner, and the response was that they did not wish to consent to the designation and would be seeking financial compensation for any reduction in market value resulting from the designation”.
However,
The Local Government Act
Section 612 (1) Heritage Designation Procedure states:
612 (1) Before a heritage designation bylaw is adopted, the local government must hold a public hearing on the proposed bylaw for the purpose of allowing affected parties and the general public to make representations respecting matters contained in the proposed bylaw.(5) The local government must have a report prepared regarding the property to be designated that includes information respecting the following matters:
(c) the compatibility of conservation with lawful uses of the property and adjoining lands;
(d) the condition and economic viability of the property;
(e) the possible need for financial or other support to enable appropriate conservation.
The developer compensation would have been significant in this case given the potential subdivision profits involved. However, the question is: If the financial information that, legislatively, had to be provided to the Public anyway at the late Heritage Designation Bylaw approval stage, why was this important information planned to be provided at the very last stage, and last minute? Why could it not have been considered and brought to Council’s and the public’s attention much much earlier?
It was pointed out at a Council meeting that Oak Bay has many comparable 785 Island Road homes with not nearly the inherent problems (perhaps other than the state of the infrastructure). Saving them though a heritage designation bylaw process would not be possible as there is nowhere near the substantial funding necessary to protect even a handful. With the number of planning staff at hand wouldn’t this have been a consideration before recommending a Heritage Revitalization Subdivision for this development application?
In Conclusion: Residents are repeatedly bringing the same Planning Department Development policy and process concerns to Council. These have been recognised by Council since 2017. Often development proposal information is hard to come by for members of the public. As indicated by some of the failed development examples provided above, a tremendous amount of resident, staff, and Council time and expense is being wasted. Council’s relationship with the general public is being negatively impacted.
Meanwhile, more and more administration staff are being hired. How many of these discovered-late, obviously unacceptable developments is it going to take before Council takes corrective action?
“Nothing is inevitable if you are paying attention” Oak Bay Watch
*******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 and sign up for our newsletter – bottom of Newsletter Menu Item.
Appendix #1
Please note: 785 Island Road's L-Shaped Lot, the number of trees on the property and that the required access and exit to 2nd subdivided lot's proposed 3,000 sq ft plus 2nd House would be on Plumer. Therefore not only would any additional 2nd lot parking due to the Plumber's limited size be an issue, but so would the number of trees and green space that would be lost due to additional lot coverage
