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 A. R. Cassidy Councillor P. Copley Councillor J. D. Herbert Councillor N. B. 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 MEETING:
Council – October 10, 2006
MOVED by Councillor Cassidy
Seconded by Councillor
Braithwaite, That the minutes of the Council meeting held on Monday October 10,
2006, be adopted.
As suggested at
the September 25, 2006 Council meeting
The question
was then called.
CARRIED
Special Council – October 16,
2006
MOVED by Councillor Cassidy
Seconded by
Councillor Herbert, That the minutes of the Special Council meeting held on
Monday, October 16, 2006, be adopted.
CARRIED
Committee of the Whole – October
16, 2006
MOVED by
Councillor Cassidy
Seconded by
Councillor Copley, That the minutes of the Committee of the Whole meeting held
on Monday, October 16, 2006, and the recommendations contained therein, be
adopted.
CARRIED
COMMUNICATIONS:
|
1. |
2006-347 |
CAPITAL REGIONAL DISTRICT, September 19,
2006 Re Capital Regional District Strategic
Plan – Presentation |
It was noted
that at its October 10, 2006 meeting Council resolved to invite the Chief
Administrative Officer of the Capital Regional District (CRD) to attend the
next Council meeting to provide a presentation on the CRD’s draft Strategic
Plan.
Kelly Daniels,
Chief Administrative Officer, Capital Regional District, was in attendance to provide
Council with a visual presentation regarding how the need for a strategic plan
was identified, the process that was followed in working towards the creation
of the draft Plan and the results that have followed.
With respect to
identifying the need for a strategic plan, Mr. Daniels explained that the Board
and senior staff took part in a survey that resulted in various concerns being
raised. The concerns raised, he said, focussed
on the lack of corporate direction, confusion regarding the CRD’s role, the potential
for improved performance, and the need for improved communication with the
public, member municipalities and staff.
A consulting
firm was chosen, said Mr. Daniels, and the process of a service review, developing
the Strategic Plan, creating logic models, which he explained are ways to ensure
all the departments work cooperatively to achieve the Board’s objective through
the planning process, the development of a business plan and monitoring
mechanisms followed. The business plan,
as well as a monitoring mechanism, said Mr. Daniels, will offer feedback to
ensure that the goals set out by the Board are being achieved.
Mr. Daniels drew
attention to the process to date that has included numerous meetings with
municipal administrators, CRD staff, and with the Board in order to get a consensus
around the region of what the priorities should be. This was brought forward to municipal elected
officials in the first Forum of Councils in June 2006, he said. The draft Plan has been presented to
Councils as well as to 82 agencies that are linked to service providers within
the region, and the Board is currently in the process of receiving feedback from
these organizations with the intent to go forward with the final Plan in
January 2007. Mr. Daniels noted that it is anticipated that
the business planning process will be developed in 2007 for the 2008 budget
year.
Mr. Daniels drew
attention to the six priorities that emerged, as noted in the draft Plan, which
are environmental protection, regional transportation, growth management,
emergency and disaster response, organizational performance, and liquid waste
and sewage. He noted that the CRD is
also focussing on issues such as regional transportation, even though it does
not have authority over this area.
With respect to
whether or not the CRD has prepared the appropriate strategic plan, Mr. Daniels
said that from the feedback received following the forum of Councils, there is a
strong sense of support for the priorities and the expected outcomes set out by
the Board.
A member of
Council raised the concern that the draft Plan did not seem to be in a form
appropriate for public distribution, rather, it read more as an internal
document. Mr. Daniels responded, stating
that the document was expected to be made available to the public in a more accessible
and user friendly format, to be included as part of the Annual Report, and to
be posted to the CRD’s website.
Noting the
importance of the input received on the creation of the draft Plan by elected
officials, a member of Council asked why there did not appear to have been
public input into the plan as presented.
Mr. Daniels said that the Board considered various approaches and
models, however, it made the decision to go forward and obtain input from the
leaders of the community first, and that feedback on the Plan would be sought
from the public following the next general local election. The comment was made that it was hoped there
would be a quicker turnaround on public input on the Plan. Mr. Daniels did indicate that some of the
priorities identified in the draft Plan have received extensive feedback from
the public in the past, such as with the Liquid Waste Management Plan.
Recognizing that
although the CRD has the ability to address transportation issues through
providing bike paths for alternate transportation, the question was asked what
role the CRD could play in respect to the problems being experienced with
traffic volume, given that regional transportation is outside of the CRD’s
authority. The draft Plan, it was noted,
did not seem to address these transportation issues.
Mr. Daniels said
that the CRD recognizes that regional issues with respect to transportation
need to be addressed, and that the CRD will work with the Province to explore
ways to deal with those issues. He
suggested that the CRD could possibly take on a coordinating role with other
agencies and governmental bodies to address this issue at a regional level. He further noted that the CRD does have
authority with respect to regional growth strategies and transportation
planning to address traffic impacts for proposed development.
There was
further discussion on the draft Plan, and a member of Council urged the CRD to
consider revising the draft Plan to use plain language, avoiding the use of
catch phrases, to make it easier to read and understand.
Attention was
drawn to the challenges facing the Board with respect to the way directives
from higher levels of government can affect the Board’s priorities and their
level of importance in relation to other priorities. It was noted that when first surveyed, Board
members placed the lowest priority on liquid waste/sewage where now, with the
directive of the Province that the CRD expedite the process of implementing
sewage treatment for the areas covered by the Core Area Liquid Waste Management
Plan, it must be given higher priority. The
budgeting implications of changing priorities were also acknowledged.
MOVED by
Councillor Jensen
Seconded by
Councillor Braithwaite, That a letter be sent to the CRD regarding Oak Bay
Council’s comments on the CRD’s draft Strategic Plan.
CARRIED
|
2. |
2006-359 |
Re General
Strategic Priorities Fund and Innovations Fund Programs – Gas Tax Program |
The Municipal
Administrator referred to the letter from the Union of British Columbia
Municipalities regarding the rollout of one of several components of the Gas
Tax Funding Program. Mr. Cochrane
explained that one component is population driven and non-application based, requiring
the Municipality to report on what the funds were used for, and that the program
will be evaluated after the first five years to ensure it is on track and that
it realized what it set out to achieve.
There are other components that are application based, such as the
General Strategic Priorities Fund, which provides up to 100% funding of large
capital projects with regional implications.
The grant application information is put before Council for information
and has a fairly early deadline of February 16, 2007, he said. Mr. Cochrane drew attention to the Director
of Engineering Services’ presentation at the Committee of the Whole
approximately a month ago describing the program he proposed for separating the
sewer system in the Uplands on an incremental basis and constructing two retention
chambers at the very downstream ends of the system. It was noted that as the cost of constructing
the chambers could not be funded incrementally, and it has not been pursued as
it is only at the preliminary planning stage, this is an area where Council
could consider a grant application, although time frames would be tight for
preparing an application.
In response to a
question from Council, the Director of Engineering Services noted that this was
indeed a very tight timeline for such a project, but that it is conceptually
possible to install the retention chambers at the beginning of the project if necessary.
Mr. Marshall noted that there would be a
significant amount of engineering work to be done that would likely take
several months, and that if this project did receive funding, the grant would
not include the engineering consultant’s costs that would be required to put
forward the proposed application.
A Council
member, referring to the note from the Municipal Administrator attached to the
correspondence, inquired about the funds allocation for the proposed cycling
lane project. In explanation, Mr.
Cochrane said that this is a different component of the program, and would be a
grant from the CRD that falls under its Travel Choices Plan where certain funds
have been earmarked for the
MOVED by
Councillor Herbert
Seconded by
Councillor Braithwaite, That correspondence item no. 2006-359 be received.
CARRIED
|
3. |
2006-360 |
DIRECTOR OF
BUILDING AND PLANNING, October 24, 2006 Re Application
for Official Community Plan Amendment Regarding the Royal |
The Director of Building and
Planning noted that Mr. Philip White has made an application for an amendment
to the Official Community Plan (OCP) that would affect the Royal Victoria Yacht
Club property and the Oak Bay Marina with respect to restricting the moorage
expansion of either of these properties.
The current OCP, he said, already has such wording in place for the Oak
Bay Marina, however, the Royal Victoria Yacht Club is not included in this
regard.
In response to questions
from Council regarding what stage the application previously submitted by the
Royal Victoria Yacht Club for an expansion of its moorage is at, Mr. Beattie
indicated that the Club proposes to increase its moorage by 60 berths, and that
further information regarding the application that Council requested from the
Club has not yet been received.
Acknowledging that there are
now two competing applications for amendments to the OCP, members of Council
queried what the process should be in dealing with the applications. The Municipal Administrator commented that
the application submitted by Philip White of
It was noted that up until
now, opponents of a development proposal represented by an application for a
zoning or OCP amendment have focussed on why the application should not be
approved, and have not actually submitted a counter-application, as is the case
here.
It would seem, said Mr.
Cochrane, as though Council felt that the Royal Victoria Yacht Club’s proposal had
merit, as it was not rejected and Council requested that the Yacht Club provide
more information, which the Club is now working on.
With this in mind, he said, the
first application is still pending and Council is obligated under the Local Government Act to consider every
application for amendment to the Zoning Bylaw or the Official Community Plan. Should this new application be approved,
Council would have effectively prejudged and rejected the Yacht Club
application, which is still under consideration and on which money is being
spent due to the course Council took with the application. He further pointed out that an amendment to
the Official Community Plan is already required in order to accommodate the
Yacht Club proposal and it could not go ahead without that amendment.
Mr. Cochrane recommended that
Council direct that the application from Mr. White be placed on the Council or
Committee of the Whole agenda, as the case may be, at every occasion that the
Yacht Club application is on the agenda, effectively having both applications
before Council at the same time.
In terms of whether or not
to go to public hearing, it should be recognized that the Yacht Club
application was submitted first, and that this decision should first be made
with respect to the Club’s application. Mr.
Cochrane went on to identify three scenarios for Council’s consideration.
In scenario one, if the
decision is to not go to public hearing with the Yacht Club application (i.e. to
reject it before that stage), then it would be entirely appropriate to deal
with Mr. White’s application, said Mr. Cochrane. It may be appropriate to amend the Official
Community Plan to include his suggested wording just to make it crystal clear that
no expansion to the Yacht Club is foreseen.
The second scenario
described by Mr. Cochrane would be for Council to decide to go to public
hearing with the Yacht Club application, then decide not to proceed following
the hearing, noting the result would be the same situation as a pre-hearing
rejection. It may or may not be
reasonable to incorporate the language proposed by Mr. White. As was already pointed out, the dock area could
not be expanded without an amendment to the Community Plan, however, should
Council wish to send a crystal clear message, it could proceed with a new bylaw
including the wording Mr. White suggested, he said.
The third scenario would be approval
of the Yacht Club application following a public hearing. Should the process culminate this way, then
Council would pass a motion to formally reject Mr. White’s application, noted
Mr. Cochrane.
As Council is aware, said
Mr. Cochrane, the municipality is required to do public consultation pre-public
hearing, and that advertising in that regard could indicate that comments would
be accepted on both proposals, because they are really just opposite sides of
the same issue.
In conclusion he said, for
all intents and purposes, it would be no different than hearing from both sides
of similar issues brought before Council, with the opponents, in this case,
electing to use a different strategy.
MOVED by Councillor Jensen
Seconded by Councillor Herbert,
That the application for an amendment to the Official Community Plan with
regard to future expansion of the Royal Victoria Yacht Club, as set out in the
attachment to Item No. 2006-360, be included on the agenda for all meetings of
Council or Committee of the Whole, at which the earlier application from the
Royal Victoria Yacht Club is to be considered.
There was
discussion on whether or not to invite Mr. White, the applicant, to speak to
his application at this point in the process.
It was the consensus of Council that inasmuch as the proposed motion
would ensure participation by the applicant at future meetings, along with the
participation of representatives from the Royal Victoria Yacht Club, input from
the applicant should wait until those future meetings.
The question was then
called.
CARRIED
|
4. |
2006-361 |
DAVID ADAMS, October 20, 2006 Re Development Variance Permit – Proposed
Boundary Adjustment between 2171 and |
MOVED by Councillor Jensen
Seconded by Councillor Herbert,
That correspondence item no. 2006-361 be received.
CARRIED
|
5. |
2006-362 |
LORNA WOOD AND ALAN
BUCKLEY, October 29, 2006 Re Development Variance Permit – |
Councillor
Jensen indicated that there may be a perception of conflict of interest
inasmuch as he is a friend of the applicant’s family and, not knowing the
application would be coming to Committee for consideration, discussed the plans
with the applicant. He noted that he
would be unable to participate in the discussion or vote on the matter. Councillor Jensen left the meeting at 8:44 p.m.
MOVED by
Councillor Cassidy
Seconded by
Councillor Herbert, That correspondence item no. 2006-362 be received.
CARRIED
Councillor
Jensen returned to the meeting at 8:45 p.m.
NEW
BUSINESS/REPORTS FROM OTHER COMMITTEES:
Centennial Book
Councillor
Herbert noted that the Centennial Book is selling well. He advised that
the Committee has requested that Council consider “purchasing” 200 books for
the Municipality for future use, with the revenue from those 200 books to be
credited to the Centennial account. In order to do this, given that the
books are already technically owned by the Municipality, a transfer from the
general contingency account in the amount of $5,000 to the Centennial account
is being suggested. Councillor Herbert explained that the Committee would
like to make recommendations to Council with respect to how the net book
revenue should be used, including the funds from the books purchased by the
Municipality.
MOVED by
Councillor Herbert
Seconded by
Councillor Cassidy, That the District of Oak Bay purchase 200 Centennial Books
at the cost of $5,000.00 to be paid out of the general contingency account.
CARRIED
Boulevard Trees in
Responding to a
question from Council regarding the boulevard trees in
It was noted by
Councillor Braithwaite that residents have contacted her expressing their
desire to see the trees remain through the Christmas season so that Christmas
lights can be displayed on them.
Acknowledging
that there is also some pressure to remove the trees and that the funds for
their removal are already budgeted, Mr. Cochrane indicated that it is recommended
that the trees be removed soon.
The Director of
Engineering Services agreed that there are also people, such as some of the
village merchants, that wish to see the trees removed, and that he would be
meeting with some of the merchants in the near future.
Mr. Marshall
was requested to bring back a report to Committee of the Whole regarding the
removal of the trees, and whether or not they might remain over the Christmas
season.
Councillor
Jensen drew attention to information he received at the recent Union of British
Columbia Municipalities conference
regarding possible funding for the creation of town squares. Staff was
requested to research the program and provide information in this regard to
members of Council.
Climate Change
Councillor
Jensen noted a session he attended at the Union of British Columbia
Municipalities conference regarding
initiatives undertaken by the City of
It was pointed
out that in Dawson Creek, the first step had been to approach staff with
respect to what measures were already planned prior to taking any action, and
it was suggested that Oak Bay’s staff should be consulted regarding plans for
dealing with climate change issues before forming an advisory group for that
purpose.
Heritage Preservation – Property Taxation Relief
Incentives
Councillor
Cassidy said that he had attended a workshop at the Union of British Columbia
Municipalities conference regarding
the use of property tax relief as an incentive to encourage heritage
preservation. He acknowledged that the workshop focused on commercial
heritage buildings, but that he would like to see the option of tax relief in
relation to single family homes explored.
Letter from Resident re Cycling on King George Terrace
Councillor Cassidy
drew attention to a letter that was distributed to Council regarding concerns a
resident had with respect to the danger of speeding cyclists on King George
Terrace. The letter, he said, made reference to a conversation between
the resident and a member of the Oak Bay Police Department which left the
resident with the perception that policing in Oak Bay was only reactive versus
proactive, due to budget constraints. Councillor Cassidy noted his
disagreement with this.
Oak Bay Organics Pilot Project
Shanghai Administrators
Crystal Meth
Mayor Causton
drew attention to the request from the president of the Crystal Meth Victoria
Society to have Council pass a resolution to the Canadian Federation of
Canadian Municipalities, a copy of which had been distributed to each member of
Council. Noting that while some parts of the proposed resolution would
possibly need re-wording, Mayor Causton indicated that he felt Council should
give consideration to the resolution at a meeting of Council.
There was
consensus to place the proposed resolution on the agenda for the next meeting
of Council.
TABLED:
Development Variance Permit –
Proposed Boundary Adjustment between 2171 and
MOVED by Councillor Cassidy
Seconded by Councillor Braithwaite,
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 the proposed
boundary adjustment subdivision of:
·
Parcel A (DD43305-I) of Lot 21, Section 23,
·
Lot 1, Section 23,
which would vary the requirements of Section 3.6.1 and
Schedule A of Bylaw No. 3531, Zoning Bylaw, 1986, and Section 5 of Bylaw No. 3578, Subdivision and Development
Bylaw, 1987 to allow the proposed Lot B to be created with a minimum width of
6.1 metres, substantially as shown on the sketch plan of the proposed
subdivision prepared by Powell & Associates, B.C. Land Surveyors, dated
July 19, 2006, attached to Committee of the Whole agenda item #2006-345, being
a memorandum from the Approving Officer dated July 28, 2006, when and if the
Approving Officer grants preliminary approval to the proposed subdivision, and
upon the applicant satisfying all conditions of preliminary approval set out by
the Approving Officer.
John Lee, 2162 Brighton
Avenue, was in attendance
speaking on behalf of himself and Johann Cunningham of
The Approving Officer
responding by saying that he had not considered placing the same condition on
Lot ‘A’ as its size is being reduced, whereas Lot ‘B’ would increase in size.
It was the general consensus
of the members of Council that it would not be necessary to impose a
non-severable condition on Lot ‘A’ at this time, as the property currently
meets the minimum lot size requirements for subdivision, although not all
conditions of subdivision could necessarily be met, and a variance would have
to be applied for.
The question on the main motion was then called.
CARRIED
There was consensus to amend
the order of the agenda.
Council Meeting Schedule For
December
MOVED by Councillor Jensen
Seconded by Councillor Herbert, That the regular meeting schedule
for Council and Committee of the Whole be suspended for the month of December
2006 and that the following schedule be substituted:
Committee of the Whole December 4, 2006 at 7:30 pm
Council December 11, 2006 at 7:30 pm
CARRIED
BYLAWS:
For Adoption
Bylaw No. 4328
MOVED
by Councillor Jensen
Seconded
by Councillor Copley, That Bylaw No. 4328, Maquinna Street Stopping Up, Closing and
Removing of Highway Dedication Bylaw, 2006 be adopted.
The
Municipal Clerk, in response to a question from a
The
question was then called.
CARRIED
Bylaw No. 4330
MOVED
by Councillor Jensen
Seconded by Councillor Copley,
That Bylaw No. 4330, Property Tax Exemption Bylaw, 2006 be adopted.
CARRIED
RESOLUTIONS:
Development Variance Permit –
Councillor
Jensen reiterated his earlier comments regarding a perception of conflict due
to his association with the applicant’s family, and left the meeting at 9:35
p.m.
Rus Collins,
Zebra Design & Interiors Group Inc., was in attendance to answer questions raised at the October
16, 2006 Committee of the Whole meeting.
Mr. Collins first addressed the Committee’s wish to see the hedge,
located along
Regarding
the suggested heritage designation of the property, Mr. Collins said that the
homeowners are planning to invest a great deal to restore the house and bring
it up to code, and that the façade of the dwelling will be changed. It will be like a brand new house, therefore
heritage designation would not reflect the renovated dwelling, he said.
Mr.
Collins assured members of Council on the subject of garage access, noting that
it is the wish of the homeowners to preserve the undeveloped laneway as it is in
its natural state, however, a tree would have to be removed to allow vehicle
access to and from the garage, he said. The original area proposed to be paved has
been reduced to meet the maximum paved area as if the property is subdivided in
the future.
In response to
concerns about the affect the volume of the relocated dwelling and a possible
second building would have on the north and south neighbours, who have smaller
scale houses,, Mr. Cochrane said that at the time of the subdivision application
the Approving Officer could require a design covenant on the lot in order to
protect the interests of the bordering lots. Mr. Collins indicated that he thought the
owners would be willing to look at such a covenant.
A Council member
recommended that Mr. Collins and the homeowners meet with the neighbours from
With respect to
the proposed renovations, a member of Council expressed her concern regarding
the significant departure from the style of the homes along the street and the
effect the proposed changes to the house will have on the streetscape. She noted that when the application was first
reviewed by Committee of the Whole, she thought the renovations would be
limited to the rear of the home. It was
noted that with what seems to be several unresolved issues surrounding the
development variance permit application for
MOVED by Councillor Herbert
Seconded by Councillor Copley,
That the application with respect to the development variance permit for
CARRIED
ADJOURNMENT:
MOVED by
Councillor Braithwaite
Seconded
by Councillor Cassidy, That the meeting of Council be adjourned.
CARRIED
The meeting adjourned at 9:51 p.m.
Certified
Correct:
|
_______________________________ Municipal Clerk |
|
_______________________________ |