A Time to Worry – Another good example of irresponsible decision making.
On Monday, June 24, 2019, Council considered final approval of a substantial expansion of a small non-conforming duplex at 2506-2512 Wootten Place. The motion to approved failed to pass by a 3-3 tie. A majority Council vote is required to approve. Councillors Ney, Appleton and Mayor Murdoch voting to approve and Councillors Green, Paterson and Zhelka voting to deny,
On the face of things a good result: however was it? Why such a close vote? It should have been very obvious to the three "approval" members of Council that the public interest wasn’t even close to being served. How could they have thought this development was a good idea. The fact that this proposal‘s significantly increased size will severely impact a neighbour's property (contrary to the Official Community Plan) was not considered important.
However, what was very important and revealing was the close vote to allow stratification. If both sides could be sold off separately this will send a message to other duplex and speculator owners that it is now possible to make a lot of money by over building and stratifying. The new allowable expansion would set a precedent and real estate windfalls would have a dramatic impact on many similar duplex family rentals in Oak Bay. More demolitions and maximum sized buildings would follow.
Converting to strata and increasing density favours developers by producing profitable, marketable units however, it is easy to understand that this replaces family rental units of which Oak Bay is desperately short.
These Council members had more than adequate information provided, both by resident submissions, and in the media. This should have alerted all Council members of the consequences of approving this duplex not just the three who voted responsibly against approval. It was also possible to approve a moderate expansion and disallow stratification.
The Planning Department Director stated there were two legislative acts involved and he would advise Council to approve stratification based on this information. A resident in attendance would have clarified this very important point had he been provided the opportunity by Council. What is very concerning is that other municipalities have disallowed duplex stratification and prevented serious loss of rental stock. This included Nanaimo, the Planning Director’s previous employer.
Note: A developer or owner is routinely provided the opportunity for further input at Council (unrestricted), whereas the public is not.
With such an important over-riding land change decision, it would have been reasonable for Councillors Ney, Appleton and Mayor Murdoch to request that the Director of Planning verify his position in writing and direct Planning to look for other options.
Oak Bay Watch Perspective
Councillors continue to approve unpopular developments saying they have no choice because they are following the zoning rules. However Oak Bay Watch and hundreds of residents for years now have told Council that the zoning rules are broken. Council has admitted this and expensively loaded up our Planning Department which is headed by its Urban Development Institute, representative (BC’s largest lobby for the development and real estate industries).
The best, simplest and obvious solution for this application is to deny stratification and get Planning going on fixing the zoning and protecting our Community.
Keep Informed: oakbaywatch.com
On Monday, June 24, 2019, Council considered final approval of a substantial expansion of a small non-conforming duplex at 2506-2512 Wootten Place. The motion to approved failed to pass by a 3-3 tie. A majority Council vote is required to approve. Councillors Ney, Appleton and Mayor Murdoch voting to approve and Councillors Green, Paterson and Zhelka voting to deny,
On the face of things a good result: however was it? Why such a close vote? It should have been very obvious to the three "approval" members of Council that the public interest wasn’t even close to being served. How could they have thought this development was a good idea. The fact that this proposal‘s significantly increased size will severely impact a neighbour's property (contrary to the Official Community Plan) was not considered important.
However, what was very important and revealing was the close vote to allow stratification. If both sides could be sold off separately this will send a message to other duplex and speculator owners that it is now possible to make a lot of money by over building and stratifying. The new allowable expansion would set a precedent and real estate windfalls would have a dramatic impact on many similar duplex family rentals in Oak Bay. More demolitions and maximum sized buildings would follow.
Converting to strata and increasing density favours developers by producing profitable, marketable units however, it is easy to understand that this replaces family rental units of which Oak Bay is desperately short.
These Council members had more than adequate information provided, both by resident submissions, and in the media. This should have alerted all Council members of the consequences of approving this duplex not just the three who voted responsibly against approval. It was also possible to approve a moderate expansion and disallow stratification.
The Planning Department Director stated there were two legislative acts involved and he would advise Council to approve stratification based on this information. A resident in attendance would have clarified this very important point had he been provided the opportunity by Council. What is very concerning is that other municipalities have disallowed duplex stratification and prevented serious loss of rental stock. This included Nanaimo, the Planning Director’s previous employer.
Note: A developer or owner is routinely provided the opportunity for further input at Council (unrestricted), whereas the public is not.
With such an important over-riding land change decision, it would have been reasonable for Councillors Ney, Appleton and Mayor Murdoch to request that the Director of Planning verify his position in writing and direct Planning to look for other options.
Oak Bay Watch Perspective
- How is it possible for some prospective Council members at election time to faithfully commit to protecting the public interest and then some ignore it after being elected?
- How is it possible for some prospective Council members to say that, if elected, they will campaign to increase rental stock when three of them voted to significantly reduce it when taking office?
- How is it possible that some Council members say they are concerned about the affordable housing issue, but consistently vote to approve removing a smaller affordable home to build a much bigger and invasive expensive one?
- How can some Council Members ignore the fact that the zoning bylaw was not corrected in 2014 when delegation after delegation of residents have been appearing at Council meetings protesting the over-building of lots. A look around our neighbourhoods will easily confirm this?
- How can some Councillors who take an oath to protect the public interest so obviously ignore it when making development and environmental decisions?
Councillors continue to approve unpopular developments saying they have no choice because they are following the zoning rules. However Oak Bay Watch and hundreds of residents for years now have told Council that the zoning rules are broken. Council has admitted this and expensively loaded up our Planning Department which is headed by its Urban Development Institute, representative (BC’s largest lobby for the development and real estate industries).
The best, simplest and obvious solution for this application is to deny stratification and get Planning going on fixing the zoning and protecting our Community.
Keep Informed: oakbaywatch.com