Newsletter January 22, 2023: What we have here is a failure to collaborate.
--------------------------------------
“It’s one thing to grow Oak Bay’s population, but it’s another to ensure that the increase provides the revenue to support it”
Council’s Infill Development Plan (basement suites etc.) for the most part, does not provide the revenue to support its many impacts - period. Oak Bay Watch will provide much more information about these very real impacts when Council considers the 2023 annual budget in the coming months.
Recent Councils have not provided a cost benefit analysis that would show the inherent impact costs that will result from infill densification. They have also not reduced the zoning bylaw's present, excessive lot coverage that is causing so much, environmental and climate destruction.
“It’s one thing to provide an opportunity for public input, but it’s another to include that input in Council’s decisions”.
The public has made it very clear they do not want over-development, excessive lot coverage and urban forest and environmental destruction.
From the outset it is very obvious where this council is headed. It intends to follow the provincial lead and provide as much housing as possible on the pretext it will make housing affordable in Oak Bay. Note: Premier Eby has not indicated he will provide any infrastructure improvement funding that his “supply side” densification plan will require. Councis have also demonstrated that infrastructure impacts caused by new development is not, and has not, been a consideration.
Two recent examples:
The 2072 Hampshire Subdivision Approval: Council did not consider what the impacts would be with that amount of lot coverage that will clearcut so many of Oak Bay’s natural assets.. Aren’t these the same natural assets that Council has stated they are committed to protect (see Oak Bay Watch Perspective).
The 772 Victoria Drive Subdivision: While this application currently does not match the Hampshire Subdivisions natural asset clearcutting, this could change. On January 9th, 2023, Council called for increased density on the site. The Advisory Design Panel (ADP) informed Council it also wants more density on lots . It’s apparently not a problem that ADP members have to be approved by the Architectural Institute of BC and the Institute’s members would benefit if the present, allowable excessive density were increased. Also It doesn’t seem to matter that “more density advice” is not part of the ADP mandate.
Oak Bay Watch Perspective
We are still baffled: Oak Bay’s Council Agendas Headings state:
Climate Change & Environment: Proactively mitigate and adapt to climate change and preserve and enhance the environment.
Leadership: We are responsible and collectively steward the physical, natural, and social assets of our community. We use the principles of sustainable development to take climate action and to ensure Oak Bay’s ecological, social, and economic future is not compromised.
However, these Council Priorities and Values are literally “missing in action” when it comes to development application approvals.
We are also at a loss to explain the Mayor’s January 9th, 2023 statements regarding the 772 Victoria Drive Development Subdivision Application. The Mayor asked the applicant, to ask the owner, to consider a lot more density than was requested for the site. He referenced that ”as there is universal direction on Council to date to move forward on infill”, and that this is a large lot it would be possible to build a lot of townhouses on it. The Mayor indicated this could be a test case for infill housing, and he used a standard developer term, calling this “ gentle densification”,
The Facts:
It seems to us that, given the size of this lot, it would be necessary to stack the townhouses similar to the Aryze Rhodo Townhouse Development on Fairfield Road near Hollywood Park and the Fairfield Mall. That development in any reasonable persons estimate, could not be called “gentle densification”.
The Neighbourhoods residents and neighborhood association vehemently opposed this development, based on so much density and not fitting the neighbourhoods character. Their opposition included a lawsuit.
Promoting more density on specific developments, we understand, is not a role Council should undertake. This also indicates that the writing is on the wall for any resident input that would influence Council's Infill Initiative decisions.
It is very unlikely that the community would support infill that requires clear-cutting lots and is not proportionate to the lot. We suspect most residents, as we did, envisaged infill meant adding a carriage house to a large lot. Not the whole ”missing middle” concept that is now so prevalent, but this seems to be Council’s plan.
Even the Planning Department, that has never met a development it hasn’t supported, understands this. Their report indicates that this Council’s request for more densification “pre-proposes the outcome”. We interpret this to mean it renders the promised infill public engagement process meaningless – See Appendix #1.
-------------------------------------
Nothing is inevitable if you are paying attention” Oak Bay Watch
Oak Bay Watch is a volunteer community association and its members have a variety of professional backgrounds in both the public and private sector.
*******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
DVP00126 – 772 Victoria Avenue - January 09, 2023 – Planning Department Staff January 9, 2023 Report Excerpts:
“Staff do consider the proposed development to be a modest form of Infill Housing which is consistent with stated OCP policy objectives. Aside from lot width, the proposed subdivision will work within the existing RS-5 zoning to subdivide the parcel instead of constructing one larger single-family home on the property.”
“Because the development is not an intensive infill project (one that would require rezoning or other OCP amendments) staff do not consider the (submitted) DVP application to presuppose the outcome of the District’s Infill Housing Strategy.”
“Overall, staff are of the opinion that the requested variance and development plans will not have an adverse impact on the neighbourhood,”
--------------------------------------
“It’s one thing to grow Oak Bay’s population, but it’s another to ensure that the increase provides the revenue to support it”
Council’s Infill Development Plan (basement suites etc.) for the most part, does not provide the revenue to support its many impacts - period. Oak Bay Watch will provide much more information about these very real impacts when Council considers the 2023 annual budget in the coming months.
Recent Councils have not provided a cost benefit analysis that would show the inherent impact costs that will result from infill densification. They have also not reduced the zoning bylaw's present, excessive lot coverage that is causing so much, environmental and climate destruction.
“It’s one thing to provide an opportunity for public input, but it’s another to include that input in Council’s decisions”.
The public has made it very clear they do not want over-development, excessive lot coverage and urban forest and environmental destruction.
From the outset it is very obvious where this council is headed. It intends to follow the provincial lead and provide as much housing as possible on the pretext it will make housing affordable in Oak Bay. Note: Premier Eby has not indicated he will provide any infrastructure improvement funding that his “supply side” densification plan will require. Councis have also demonstrated that infrastructure impacts caused by new development is not, and has not, been a consideration.
Two recent examples:
The 2072 Hampshire Subdivision Approval: Council did not consider what the impacts would be with that amount of lot coverage that will clearcut so many of Oak Bay’s natural assets.. Aren’t these the same natural assets that Council has stated they are committed to protect (see Oak Bay Watch Perspective).
The 772 Victoria Drive Subdivision: While this application currently does not match the Hampshire Subdivisions natural asset clearcutting, this could change. On January 9th, 2023, Council called for increased density on the site. The Advisory Design Panel (ADP) informed Council it also wants more density on lots . It’s apparently not a problem that ADP members have to be approved by the Architectural Institute of BC and the Institute’s members would benefit if the present, allowable excessive density were increased. Also It doesn’t seem to matter that “more density advice” is not part of the ADP mandate.
Oak Bay Watch Perspective
We are still baffled: Oak Bay’s Council Agendas Headings state:
Climate Change & Environment: Proactively mitigate and adapt to climate change and preserve and enhance the environment.
Leadership: We are responsible and collectively steward the physical, natural, and social assets of our community. We use the principles of sustainable development to take climate action and to ensure Oak Bay’s ecological, social, and economic future is not compromised.
However, these Council Priorities and Values are literally “missing in action” when it comes to development application approvals.
We are also at a loss to explain the Mayor’s January 9th, 2023 statements regarding the 772 Victoria Drive Development Subdivision Application. The Mayor asked the applicant, to ask the owner, to consider a lot more density than was requested for the site. He referenced that ”as there is universal direction on Council to date to move forward on infill”, and that this is a large lot it would be possible to build a lot of townhouses on it. The Mayor indicated this could be a test case for infill housing, and he used a standard developer term, calling this “ gentle densification”,
The Facts:
- 772 Victoria Drive is slightly bigger than two standard Oak Bay single-family lots.
- The development application does not provide floor plans therefore, it is not known if there will be basements, and/ or plans for basement suites.
- Parking in the area is, and has been, a very hotly debated issue in the immediate neighbourhood. Student pickup and drop off mornings and afternoons at St. Michael's School, five days a week is also a big factor.
- Building “lots of townhouses” on this site would require climate damage, and natural asset clearcutting but, according to Council, preventing this destruction is not a priority.
- The Mayor stated that being next to a school would, be a good reason to add more density. Albeit St. Michael’s School is a very expensive private school to attend and therefore out of the reach of most Oak Bay Families.
It seems to us that, given the size of this lot, it would be necessary to stack the townhouses similar to the Aryze Rhodo Townhouse Development on Fairfield Road near Hollywood Park and the Fairfield Mall. That development in any reasonable persons estimate, could not be called “gentle densification”.
The Neighbourhoods residents and neighborhood association vehemently opposed this development, based on so much density and not fitting the neighbourhoods character. Their opposition included a lawsuit.
Promoting more density on specific developments, we understand, is not a role Council should undertake. This also indicates that the writing is on the wall for any resident input that would influence Council's Infill Initiative decisions.
It is very unlikely that the community would support infill that requires clear-cutting lots and is not proportionate to the lot. We suspect most residents, as we did, envisaged infill meant adding a carriage house to a large lot. Not the whole ”missing middle” concept that is now so prevalent, but this seems to be Council’s plan.
Even the Planning Department, that has never met a development it hasn’t supported, understands this. Their report indicates that this Council’s request for more densification “pre-proposes the outcome”. We interpret this to mean it renders the promised infill public engagement process meaningless – See Appendix #1.
-------------------------------------
Nothing is inevitable if you are paying attention” Oak Bay Watch
Oak Bay Watch is a volunteer community association and its members have a variety of professional backgrounds in both the public and private sector.
*******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
DVP00126 – 772 Victoria Avenue - January 09, 2023 – Planning Department Staff January 9, 2023 Report Excerpts:
“Staff do consider the proposed development to be a modest form of Infill Housing which is consistent with stated OCP policy objectives. Aside from lot width, the proposed subdivision will work within the existing RS-5 zoning to subdivide the parcel instead of constructing one larger single-family home on the property.”
“Because the development is not an intensive infill project (one that would require rezoning or other OCP amendments) staff do not consider the (submitted) DVP application to presuppose the outcome of the District’s Infill Housing Strategy.”
“Overall, staff are of the opinion that the requested variance and development plans will not have an adverse impact on the neighbourhood,”