MINUTES of a
regular meeting of the MUNICIPAL COUNCIL of The Corporation of the District of
Oak Bay, held in the Council Chambers, Oak Bay Municipal Hall,
|
PRESENT: |
Councillor H. Braithwaite Councillor S. F. B. Carson Councillor A. R. Cassidy Councillor P. Copley Councillor J. D. Hebert Councillor N. J. Jensen |
|
STAFF: |
Municipal Administrator, W. E. Cochrane Municipal Clerk, L. Hilton Confidential Secretary, K.
Green Director of Building and
Planning, N. Beattie Municipal Treasurer, P. A. Walker Director of Engineering Services, D. |
MINUTES OF
MEETINGS:
Council – March 26, 2007
MOVED by
Councillor Cassidy
Seconded by
Councillor Braithwaite, That the minutes of the Council meeting held on Monday,
March 26, 2007, be adopted.
CARRIED
Committee of the Whole – April 2, 2007
MOVED by
Councillor Cassidy
Seconded by
Councillor Braithwaite, That the minutes of the Committee of the Whole meeting
held on Monday, April 2, 2007, and the recommendations contained therein, be
adopted.
CARRIED
COMMUNICATIONS:
|
1. |
2007-109 |
JACKIE CAMPBELL
AND DIANE MACRAE, March 19, 2007 Re Request for Street Closure for Block
Party on |
MOVED by Councillor Cassidy
Seconded by Councillor
Jensen, That permission be given for the closure of
CARRIED
|
2. |
2007-110 |
GONZALES
COOPERATIVE PRESCHOOL, April 2, 2007 Re Request to Occupy a Portion of Public
Sidewalk – (April 20-21, 2007) |
MOVED by Councillor Jensen
Seconded by
Councillor Braithwaite, That permission be granted to the
Gonzales Cooperative Preschool to occupy a portion of the public sidewalk
adjacent to 2590 Cadboro Bay Road, on April 20 and 21, 2007, from 9 o’clock
a.m. to 1 o’clock p.m. for the purpose of staging a fundraising event, subject
to the Gonzales Cooperative Preschool indemnifying the Municipality from any
liability arising from the occupancy and providing evidence of insurability in
this regard.
CARRIED
There was consensus to amend the order of the agenda.
|
3. |
2007-112 |
DIRECTOR OF BUILDING
AND PLANNING, April 2, 2007 Re Building
Permit Referral – Property Listed on Community Heritage Register – |
The Municipal Clerk, responding to a
question from Council, said that when a building is listed on the Community
Heritage Register the Director of Building and Planning is required to withhold
approval of a building permit that would alter the exterior of a property
listed on the Register until it has been referred to Council, and Council has
the opportunity to issue a Temporary Protection Order to investigate the
heritage merit of the building if it so chooses. It was noted that this was the first referral
of this kind to come forward to Council.
A member of Council commented that it would
be beneficial to have the heritage Statement of Significance for a property
included with future applications for reference.
With respect to the carport that the
applicants wish to enclose, Mr. Beattie noted that it would have been a later
addition to the original dwelling. It was
suggested by a member of Council that given the garage was built much later
than the dwelling, it was likely of little heritage significance.
Sean Lees, was in attendance on behalf of the applicants, and in
response to questions from Council regarding whether or not it would be a
burden on the applicants should a Temporary Protection Order be issued, said
that although he did not think the applicants were in a hurry to enclose the
garage, the request had come forward due to the homeowners experiencing a
number of thefts from the carport.
For clarification, the Municipal
Administrator explained that a Temporary Protection Order would place a hold on
a building permit application received from owners of listed heritage buildings
for up to sixty days and that the protection period would simply allow time to
explore how the proposed changes could effect the heritage value, including
referring the application to the Heritage Advisory Panel for a recommendation
in this regard.
Responding to questions, Mr. Cochrane noted
that the purpose of the legislation enabling temporary protection to be ordered
was meant to play a greater role where there may be a demolition request
involved. He further confirmed that
should Council find that the building is significant, it would have to make the
decision as to whether or not to designate it as heritage property.
The opinion was expressed that it would be
useful to have the plans referred to the Heritage Advisory Panel to assess the
heritage value of the carport and any affect the proposed changes might have on
its heritage significance or that of the home in general.
MOVED by Councillor Jensen
Seconded by Councillor Copley, That a 30
day Temporary Protection Order pursuant to Section 962 of the Local Government Act be issued and that
the plans to enclose the carport be referred to the Heritage Advisory Panel for
comment to Council within 30 days.
While support for using the expertise of
the Heritage Advisory Panel was noted, concerns were expressed that issuing a
Temporary Protection Order in this situation may discourage owners from wanting
to include their homes on the Community Heritage Register in future, perhaps
seeing the Register as a barrier to any changes to their property. It was felt that issuing a Temporary
Protection Order may be more appropriate where significant changes were being
contemplated.
The Motion was withdrawn with the
permission of the seconder.
Mr. Cochrane confirmed that Council’s only
options were to either receive the report from the Director of Building and
Planning for information or issue a Temporary Protection Order as previously
discussed and then refer the application to the Heritage Advisory Panel if
desired. Should Council not choose to
issue the Order, he said, it could direct staff to advise the applicants that
they could avail themselves of the expertise of the Heritage Advisory Panel if
they wish to take that step on their own initiative.
MOVED by Councillor Jensen
Seconded by
Councillor Copley, That correspondence item no. 2007-112 be received, and
further, that staff advise the applicants of the available expertise of the
Heritage Advisory Panel should they wish to have the Panel review their plans
to enclose the existing carport.
CARRIED
|
4. |
--
2007-111 2007-101 2007-90 2007-90-1 |
EXCERPT FROM
MINUTES OF MEETING OF COUNCIL, March 26, 2007 ANN WHITE, April
3, 2007 OAK BAY PARKS
DEPARTMENT, March 23, 2007 DIRECTOR OF
ENGINEERING SERVICES, March 15, 2007 ANN WHITE, March
1, 2007 Re Boulevard Encroachment Application
– |
There was discussion regarding the existing
encroachment at
MOVED by Councillor Carson
Seconded by Councillor Cassidy, That approval be given
for a boulevard encroachment agreement for 959 Island Road for the purpose of
retaining a gravelled strip along the boulevard adjacent to the road and for
landscaping purposes, subject to the owners entering into a boulevard
encroachment agreement on terms set by the Municipality, and subject to the
owners placing geotextile fabric under the gravel strip adjacent to the
municipal boulevard tree as outlined in correspondence item no. 2007-101, being
a memorandum from the Parks Department.
There was further discussion, and the view
was expressed by some members of Council that while Ms. White has improved the
look of the boulevard, the gravel portion was not in keeping with the rest of
the street and was perceived as a parking pad.
However, it was also noted that a revised plan that incorporates the use
of some gravel within a landscape treatment might be acceptable if the
perception of the creation of parking is eliminated.
The question was then called.
DEFEATED
(Councillors Braithwaite,
Copley, Herbert and Jensen against the motion)
|
5. |
2007-113 |
DIRECTOR OF
BUILDING AND PLANNING, April 2, 2007 Re Request for
Zoning Bylaw Amendment – |
The Director of Building and Planning
provided a brief overview of the application, noting that the homeowners have
requested permission to operate a small independent school at their residence
in order to home school their son due to severe health issues as laid out in
the correspondence. They would like to
include a few other children that are unable to attend public schools for the
same reasons. Mr. Beattie noted the
property is within a residential zone, and while family daycare and out of
school daycare would be permitted, a school use is not.
The Municipal Administrator noted that
should Council wish to introduce a school use in a residential zone, there are
three options available to implement it.
He noted that Council has the option of including a school use as a
permitted use within all residential zones while regulating aspects such as the
number of students and employees, the amount of floor area permitted to be
devoted to school use, etc. A second
option, he said, would be to create a new zone for this property only, again
regulating various aspects of the proposed use as previously noted. The third option, noted Mr. Cochrane, would
be to leave the property in its current zone (RS-2) and permit school use as a
secondary use on that property only, with specific regulations.
Lisa Matthews, 2710 Thorpe Place, addressed Council saying her six year old
son suffers from severe allergic and asthmatic health issues and is unable to attend
public school and therefore is being home schooled by a BC certified
teacher. Ms. Matthews indicated her
desire to offer her son and up to four other children with similar unique
requirements an opportunity for learning and social development amongst their
peers.
Ms. Matthews responded to questions from
Council, saying her family would be responsible for accreditation, adhering to
academic standards, inspections, fire safety regulations, insurance coverage,
etc. with respect to running the school, and would not be aiming to charge for
the other children who would attend.
Kim Monterey, who currently teaches the Matthews’ son and would
teach the new students should the rezoning by approved, affirmed that all
requirements for an independent school would be adhered to.
Ms. Matthews, responding to questions from Council, indicated that
she did not know how long she would need to have her son learn at home, as it
depends on his health. However, she
indicated that she would be prepared to undertake the rezoning process once
again to eliminate the school use should it no longer be required.
It was the view of Council that further
discussion on the proposed rezoning would be desirable, and that the
application should be referred to Committee of the Whole for that purpose.
MOVED by Councillor Braithwaite
Seconded by
Councillor Cassidy, That the rezoning application for
CARRIED
|
6. |
2007-115 2007-81 2007-81-1 2007-81-2 2007-81-3 2007-81-4 2007-102 2007-102-1 2007-102-2 2007-102-3 |
DIRECTOR OF
BUILDING AND PLANNING, April 3, 2007 JANET CRAIG,
February 23, 2007 EDNA AND DAVID
AULD, March 1, 2007 R. AND A.
BATTERSBY, March 7, 2007 JOHN AND
PATRICIA BURGESS, March 11, 2007 NICK JUDSON,
March 12, 2007 T. S. MANOR,
March 19, 2007 KEITH CHARSLEY,
March 21, 2007 VALERIE NICK JUDSON,
March 23, 2007 Re Development
Variance Permit – |
At its March 26, 2007 meeting it was the consensus of
Council to send the application for a development variance permit for
Nigel Banks, Banks
Design, provided drawings
that indicated the proposed location of trees to be planted to provide
screening from the street as suggested by Advisory Design Panel members.
Responding to a comment
with respect to the east wall of the house being less aesthetically
interesting, Mr. Banks explained that the proposed layout of the building as
situated does not incorporate many windows on the east side as it is close to
the neighbouring house, however the homeowner plans to add landscaping along
the wall.
Discussion turned to
concerns that were expressed by neighbours, and Nick Judson,
There was further
discussion regarding lot width, the proposed variances, floor area and the
proposed roof style and height, and attention was drawn to the unusual
narrowness of the lot which resulted in the requested variances. Mr. Banks responded to questions from Council
and advised that the total floor area for the home is the maximum allowable for
the lot size, and he provided an overview of the square footage of the various
levels.
A member of Council noted
that the existing cottage is one of a few left standing in
MOVED by Councillor Herbert
Seconded by
Councillor Copley, That the correspondence be received.
CARRIED
|
7. |
2007-116 |
MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATOR, April 4, 2007 Re Oak Bay Beach Hotel Redevelopment |
The Municipal Administrator
provided an overview of his memorandum, noting that Council, following third
reading of the bylaws in the Oak Bay Beach Hotel redevelopment package,
instructed staff to explore with the Municipality’s legal counsel, and the
applicant, alternative methods of guaranteeing a right to public access to
portions of the hotel building and grounds, as well as addressing the
incorporation of “Snug” and “Grand Lobby” interior design themes into the
proposed new building.
Mr. Cochrane advised that
ongoing discussions have taken place and an agreement has been reached with
respect to wording in the proposed public access covenant to ensure the level
of public access Council wanted to see.
The covenant with respect to the interior design features, as included
in the agenda, has remained substantially unchanged from the version considered
by Council in August, and an offsite servicing agreement has also been
drafted. The intent is to have the three
proposed documents executed and the covenants registered at the Land Title
Office prior to consideration of final adoption of the bylaws, said Mr.
Cochrane.
MOVED by Councillor Carson
Seconded by
Councillor Herbert, That the Mayor and Municipal Clerk be authorized to sign
and do all things necessary to execute the three Section 219 Land title Act
covenants in respect of the Oak Bay Beach Hotel property, addressing the
matters of public access, interior design and servicing, respectively,
substantially as attached to Council agenda item no. 2007-116, being a
memorandum from the Municipal Administrator dated April 4, 2007, with such
authority to extend to the execution of a separate agreement granting the
covenants priority over financial encumbrances if required.
A member of Council
expressed his concern with respect to a section in the proposed public access
covenant regarding the requirement for private functions to be reserved in
advance, noting that there are no definitions for ‘advance’ or ‘private
function’ which could possibly lead to a large number of such bookings by the
hotel, where public access would be limited.
Mr. Cochrane drew attention
to the section 5(a)(i) and 5(a)(ii) saying this wording is key in setting the
parameters for what is permitted.
He answered further
questions from Council, acknowledging that while there is room for some
interpretation in the document, he feels it meets Council’s objectives. He further confirmed that the Municipality
could seek recourse through the courts should the hotel not perform its duties
as laid out in the covenant.
The question was then called.
CARRIED
|
8. |
2007-114 |
MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATOR, March 29, 2007 Re Lansdowne Slope Background (For Information) |
As requested by Council at
its meeting held on March 26, 2007, the Municipal Administrator provided
detailed background information and advice on regulatory options with respect
to buildings in the Lansdowne slope area, which request was prompted by concerns
about the recent construction of a large house in the area. More specifically, he included information
regarding the possible implementation of a special zone for the Lansdowne slope
area, whether or not it is possible to create a Heritage Conservation Area for
the Lansdowne slope, and background information on the previously mentioned
design control covenant for the area that was in place many years before
through the subdivision of the land by the Hudson’s Bay Company.
Attention was drawn to the
proposed amendments to the floor area regulations of the Zoning Bylaw currently
under review that would relate to concerns regarding future development in the
Lansdowne slope area and it was noted that there will be a public meeting held
April 24, 2007 at 7:00 p.m., hosted by the Floor Area Ratio Review Committee,
to discuss floor area regulations and the proposed Bylaw.
Although Mr. Cochrane
confirmed that the Zoning Bylaw amendment, currently sitting at second reading,
would have an effect on properties in the Lansdowne slope area, such as the
house and property previously discussed, it was expressed by some members of
Council that while potential changes are being considered to the Zoning Bylaw,
they may not address the issues raised by residents on the slope, such as the
loss of views, and there could potentially be another large house built before
the bylaw could be adopted.
Another opinion expressed by
a Council member was that of the many building permits issued in the Lansdowne
slope area only one has been brought to Council’s attention by concerned
residents.
There was discussion
regarding the possible options laid out in Mr. Cochrane’s report, and staff
answered questions from Council in this regard.
Following further
discussion, there was consensus that
Council should wait for a final report from the Floor Area Ratio Review
Committee after the public meeting has been held before investigating
regulatory alternatives beyond those set out in that Bylaw.
MOVED by Councillor Carson
Seconded by
Councillor Braithwaite, That correspondence item no. 2007-114 be received.
CARRIED
TABLED:
Development Variance Permit –
MOVED by Councillor Carson
Seconded by
Councillor Cassidy, That the following motion be lifted from the table:
That the Director of Building and Planning be authorized to issue a Development Variance Permit with respect to 2183 Lafayette Street (WEST 30 FEET OF LOT 3, SECTION 22, VICTORIA DISTRICT, PLAN 1022):
1. That will vary the Parking Facilities Bylaw, 1986 in Section A.1.(a) to Schedule A to reduce the number of required parking spaces from two to one and in Section 4.7 to relax the requirement that one-half (1/2) of the required parking spaces for a one-family residential use dwelling be contained within a building; and
2. That will vary the following sections of the Zoning Bylaw, 1986, as amended, to permit the construction of a new single family dwelling in accordance with the plans considered by Committee of the Whole on February 19 and Council on February 26, 2007:
|
Bylaw
Section |
Required/ Permitted |
Requested |
Variance |
|
6.5.4.(2)(e) Total of Side |
4.57 metres |
3.05 metres |
1.52 metres |
|
6.5.4.(11) Second Storey Interior Side |
3.0 metres |
1.83 metres |
1.17 metres |
|
6.5.4.(3)(a) |
4.10 metres |
7.0 metres |
2.90 metres |
|
6.5.4.(3)(b) Maximum Occupiable Height |
2.56 metres |
4.32 metres |
1.76 metres |
|
6.5.4.(3)(c) Maximum Roof Height |
5.12 metres |
7.72 metres |
2.6 metres |
CARRIED
Although
concerns were expressed by some members of Council regarding the application,
it was the majority view of Council that the variances were supportable in this
case. It was acknowledged that the
neighbours appeared to be satisfied with the design, and that the applicants’
options are somewhat limited due to the unusually narrow lot.
The
question on the main motion was then called.
CARRIED
(Councillor Cassidy and
Councillor Jensen against the motion)
RESOLUTIONS:
Development Variance Permit
Application –
MOVED by Councillor Jensen
Seconded by
Councillor Herbert, That the Director of Building and Planning be authorized to
issue a Development Variance Permit with respect to 831 Newport Avenue (Lot 5, Block 1, Section 73, Victoria District,
Plan 992), varying the following provision of Bylaw No. 3531, Zoning Bylaw, 1986, as amended:
|
Bylaw
Section |
Required |
Requested |
Variance |
|
6.5.4.(2).(e) Setbacks – Minimum Total of Side |
4.57 metres |
3.05 metres |
1.52 metres |
to allow the construction of a new single family dwelling on the property, as shown on the plans appended to Committee of the Whole agenda item #2007-86, being a memorandum from the Director of Building and Planning dated March 5, 2007.
MOVED by Councillor Jensen
Seconded by
Councillor Herbert, That the resolution in respect to the Development Variance Permit
for 831 Newport Avenue be tabled to enable notice to be given in accordance
with the Local Government Act.
CARRIED
BYLAWS:
For Adoption
Bylaw
No. 4352
MOVED by Councillor Herbert
Seconded by Councillor
Braithwaite, That Bylaw No. 4352, Rubbish
and Weed Control Bylaw Amendment Bylaw, 2007, be adopted.
CARRIED
Bylaw
No. 4353
MOVED by Councillor Herbert
Seconded by Councillor
Braithwaite, That Bylaw No. 4353,
CARRIED
ADJOURNMENT:
MOVED by Councillor
Braithwaite
Seconded by Councillor Jensen, That the meeting of
CARRIED
The meeting adjourned at 9:52
p.m.
Certified
Correct:
|
_______________________________ Municipal Clerk |
|
_______________________________ |