MINUTES
of a regular meeting of COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE of the Municipal
|
PRESENT: |
Mayor
C. M. Causton |
|
STAFF: |
Municipal
Administrator, W. E. Cochrane Municipal
Clerk, L. Hilton Director
of Building and Planning, N. Beattie Director
of Engineering Services, S. G. Pitt |
RECREATION SECTION: (Chairman – Councillor
Carson)
|
1. |
2005-168 |
Re
Report of Meeting |
(Lorna Curtis, Manager,
Recreation Program Services, in attendance for this item.)
Councillor Carson
pointed to some amendments to the report before the Committee, noting that:
Councillor Carson also pointed
to the memorandum attached to the report on the
Responding to a question
from the Committee, the Manager for Recreation Program Services explained that
the hours used by
MOVED by Councillor
Jensen
Seconded by Councillor
Herbert, That the report of the meeting of the
CARRIED
MOVED by Councillor
Herbert
Seconded by Councillor
Macey-Brown, That the financial arrangements regarding the
CARRIED
REGULATORY
SECTION: (Chairman – Councillor Macey-Brown)
|
2. |
2005-169 2005-169-1 2005-169-2 2005-169-3 2005-169-4 2005-169-5 2005-169-6 2005-169-7 2005-169-8 2005-169-9 2005-169-10 2005-169-11 2005-169-12 2005-169-13 2005-169-14 2005-169-15 2005-147 2005-147-1 2005-147-2 2005-147-3 2005-147-4 2005-147-5 2005-147-6 2005-147-7 2005-147-8 2005-147-9 2005-147-10 2005-147-11 2005-147-12 |
MUNICIPAL
ADMINISTRATOR, TREVOR
AND VALERIE WILLIAMS, BRIAN
MCKINNELL, HABITAT
ACQUISITION TRUST, FRIENDS
OF CLAYOQUOT SOUND, May 13, 2005 DOUG
HENDERSON, (undated) M.
EVANS, (undated) WENDY
COOPER, JOHN
COOPER, NANCY
JOHNSON, LARRY
MACDONALD, MAREK
RADA, MICHELLE
TOONE, HILARY
KNIGHT, SANTIAGO
ALVAREZ et al (various dates) CHARLINE
HOOPER, OAK
BAY GREEN COMMITTEE, R.
A. HALES, JENNIFER
WILLIAMS, DONNA
SAMOYLOFF HALE, TERRI
HUNTER AND DAVID GODFREY, May 3, 2005 ELEANOR
AND LYLE M. HESS, (undated) EVERETT
JOHNSTON et al (various dates) DOROTHY
ROBE, KATHRYN
ALLAN, May 2005 GRAHAM
H. ROBE, GORDON
ROBE, LARRY
MACDONALD, VALERIE
WYATT, may 9, 2005 Re
Tree Protection Options |
Attention was drawn to
the memorandum from the Municipal Administrator on tree protection options (Item
No. 2005-169), and Councillor Macey-Brown invited the Committee to seek
clarification from staff on any information contained within it.
Responding to questions
from the Committee, the Municipal Administrator indicated that this issue could
be referred to the
The opinion was
expressed by the Committee that parameters should be set prior to a referral to
Parks and Recreation. It was noted that
the mandate of the Parks Department is to care for public property, and that the
issue now before the Committee is a wider one on how to protect trees on
private property, which would impact the work of Parks Department staff.
The Municipal
Administrator answered questions from the Committee with respect to the
contents of his memorandum.
At this time, Councillor
Macey-Brown invited members of the public to share their views with the
Committee.
Rene deVos, 2168
Guernsey Street, suggested that there is a general interest in this issue
as evidenced by nearby municipalities which are lately showing more of a
concern with tree preservation.
The Oak Bay Green
Committee, said Mr. deVos, is worried that the Municipality could lose the tree
canopy that it has for so long taken for granted. He was aware, however, that some people might
object to municipal government having control over trees and vegetation on
private property.
Mr. deVos said that the
Oak Bay Green Committee is concerned about the protection of trees that are
heritage landmarks, species native to the area, those providing ambience in the
streetscapes of the community, and those trees of a particular size. He suggested that, although there might be
costs involved in the enforcement of this issue, in the long run there would be
a positive reaction from the community at large.
Although sanctions could
be attached to such tree protection legislation, Mr. deVos said that one way to
begin would be to educate residents on the importance of saving the natural heritage
of the community. He suggested that trees
are as significant as other aspects of the municipal infrastructure such as
roads and sewers – and the waterfront
which is such an integral part of
Although the concerns of
Mr. deVos and his group were acknowledged, it was suggested by a member of the
Committee that it might be difficult to legislate “ambience”.
It was also pointed out
that the only trees native to
Mr. deVos argued that
even though other trees might not be native to the area, this did not make them
any less significant.
Hal Gibbard, 1439 Wende
Road,
introduced himself as President of the Garry Oak Meadow Preservation Society, a
group of people interested in the preservation of Garry oaks and other trees.
There have been numerous
studies made on the positive aspects of “urban forests”, said Mr. Gibbard. Those, he suggested, along with air
purification, water retention, and other environmental issues, can all be
classified under “ambience”. He agreed
that one way of protecting trees in
Mr. Gibbard also
suggested that it is important to note that the building envelope is often much
larger than the building’s actual footprint.
Therefore, he said, it is important that only trees within the footprint
be considered for removal, but not those trees within the building envelope.
Ron Carter, 973 Falkland
Road,
introduced himself as the Tree Preservation Officer and Municipal Arborist for
the District of Saanich, and said that, as a resident of Oak Bay, he feels very
strongly that it is time for Oak Bay’s Garry Oak Tree Protection Bylaw to be
reviewed to see if its scope is adequate.
The Garry oak is the signature tree of the region, said Mr. Carter, and
is the tree that must take precedence over and above other trees that might be
considered for preservation.
Responding to questions
from the Committee, Mr. Carter said that the District of Saanich has a
Significant Tree Committee which is made up of volunteers who work with homeowners
and help prevent the destruction of trees when feasible. However, it is understood that not every
tree can be saved. Some methods of
preserving healthy trees, he said, are through development permits and
covenants, as well as occasionally through the Board of Variance. Saanich also relies on the advice of private certified
arborists.
Mr. Carter said that
there is also a “two for one” tool that Saanich uses occasionally when it is
impossible, for one reason or another, to save a particular tree, which means
that for every tree that is removed, two must be replanted. Also, if the municipality wants to protect a
particular tree but the homeowner is opposed to voluntarily designating it,
there is a policy in place whereby homeowners can apply for funding assistance
in maintaining the health of the tree.
Many times this results in the owner eventually nominating the tree for
protection under municipal bylaws.
Trevor Williams, 2174
Bartlett Avenue, said that most of the people he spoke with recently were
very positive about tree protection. He
said that the impetus for the issue currently before Council was the
destruction of a beech tree on
Mr. Williams said that
the Oak Bay Green Committee is seeking some method of saving a variety of trees,
not just Garry oaks, in this Municipality whenever possible.
A member of the
Committee noted that different versions of the possible health of that
particular beech tree have been received.
It was also suggested that the rights of the property owner have to be balanced
with the rights of others who might want to save what they consider to be significant
trees.
Bruce Cumming, 151 Sunny
Lane,
said that, as an environmental biologist, he is concerned with the apparent
rampant removal of trees on properties being developed in
Mr. Cumming said
developers should be obligated to consult with the neighbours prior to the
removal of any trees.
Charlene Hooper, 2170
Beaverbrook Street, suggested that trees in
She said that she is seeking
a comprehensive tree bylaw which would, on the one hand, save significant trees
in
Ms. Hooper agreed that
there are some trees which are not worthy of keeping, and said that even Oak
Bay Parks Department staff have identified trees that will die due to disease. These trees, she said, will need to be
replaced.
It was noted that the
Matthew Baldwin, 1166
Rockland Avenue, said that although he does not reside in
He suggested that the
beech tree on the lot neighbouring his mother’s house did not need to come down
and should have been left standing, and he felt that there should have been
something in writing from a certified arborist indicating why the tree had to
be removed.
Mr. Baldwin suggested
that municipalities should rely heavily on the work of certified arborists when
considering whether or not trees on private property which are not dead, dying,
diseased, or hazardous should be removed, and that permits should be issued for
any trees that developers wish to take down.
He noted that many people nowadays are building to the maximum of the
building envelope, which endangers more and more trees.
Although Langford does not
have a tree protection bylaw, said Mr. Baldwin, it controls the removal of
vegetation through the development permit process, and he recommended that
Michael Meagher, 666
Jones Terrace, said that he is a member of the Garry Oak Meadow
Preservation Society and also has training in forestry. He suggested that
Mr. Meagher said that at
this time Garry oak saplings can be purchased for approximately $75, and he
suggested that these should be used as replacement trees whenever a tree of any
species has to be removed for some reason.
Maggie Knight, 2167
Guernsey Street, said that she has had the good fortune to live all her 16
years with a beautiful big copper beech tree, complete with swing, in her front
yard, and she has spent many hours playing on that swing. As this swing is now used by other young
people in the area, she suggested that the tree is important in the community.
Ms. Knight said that she
is concerned about the number of large properties within
Pierre d’Estrube, 1542
Athlone Drive, said that he, too, is a member of the Garry Oak Meadow
Preservation Society, and that his main objective is to support all the things
he has heard tonight. Mr. d’Estrube said
that he is concerned that oaks are gradually being replaced with conifers,
which overtake the oaks as they grow four to five times as fast and have a
thick shade, whereas oaks have a mottled shade which is much better for the
eco-system.
Jackie Hamilton, 651
Hampshire Road, said that
Ms. Hamilton said that
she has noticed that tree replacement on boulevards involve the planting of
small ornamentals which, in her opinion, is destroying the ambience of
As for voluntary tree
protections, Ms. Hamilton suggested that this would not work as there may be
some people who, for one reason or another, do not want their trees protected
and simply would not sign up for a voluntary tree register.
Marion Cumming, 151
Sunny Lane,
said that it is important that the Committee realize that it does not simply
have to protect trees, but also the entire eco-system.
Ms. Cumming suggested
hiring a part-time Heritage Planner for
Hilary Knight, 2167
Guernsey Street, said that “ambience” cannot be quantified. Regardless, she is very bothered by the loss
of “ambience” due to developers chopping down trees that they deem to be in the
way. Ms. Knight suggested that the
Municipality provide incentives for developers in order to protect the trees.
She also suggested that
Oak Bay Municipal Council institute some type of ivy eradication program
because that vegetation is directly responsible for the destruction of many
trees in
J. C. deVos, 2168
Guernsey Street, said that he has lived at this address 15 years, and during
all this time he was able to view an amazing beech tree out his back window
until it was recently cut down. He found
this action to be disgusting and he suggested that the Municipality needs
bylaws to protect such trees.
Nancy Peterson, 785
Hampshire Road, suggested that how neighbourhoods feel contributes to the
sense of the community, people’s willingness to get outside and to become
involved with others, all of which contributes to the safety of the community.
With respect to
“ambience”, Ms. Peterson suggested that some of the considerations Council
might be able to integrate or expand on could be shade or lushness of growth,
the type of contribution to the canopy, whether trees are deciduous or
coniferous, what the tree’s eventual mature height can be, how it contributes
to the canopy, habitat, ecology, and eco-systems, as well as how to choose replacement
trees for those which, for one reason or another, may be required to be removed.
Councillor Macey-Brown
thanked those who had voiced their opinions and concerns, and then asked for
input from Committee of the Whole.
There was a discussion
on whether a new committee should be struck to examine the issue of expanded
tree protection, or whether it should be forwarded to the
MOVED by Councillor
Herbert
Seconded by Councillor
Jensen, That this issue be referred to the Oak Bay Parks and Recreation
Commission with the direction that it establish a subcommittee of members of
the Parks and Recreation Commission along with community volunteers who
have some knowledge of this subject with the task of reporting back with
respect to the various discussion items outlined in correspondence item no.
2005-169, including any impacts on staffing levels and other anticipated costs
in relation to expanded tree protection.
CARRIED
PUBLIC
WORKS SECTION: (Chairman – Councillor Herbert)
|
3. |
2005-170 |
MUNICIPAL
ADMINISTRATOR, Re
Driveway Access Bylaw |
Attention was drawn to the proposed amendments to the Driveway Access
Bylaw arising from a committee formed to review the components of the bylaw
dealing with sidewalk crossings for driveways.
It was further noted that the proposed bylaw includes other amendments
to the Driveway Access Bylaw, such as permitting a residence to have an
additional driveway access from a lane, and providing Council with the
authority to approve a driveway of a wider width to accommodate the use of
wheelchairs, as directed by Committee of the Whole.
MOVED by Councillor Carson,
Seconded by Councillor Macey-Brown, That the proposed bylaw attached to
correspondence item 2005-170 be brought forward to Council for formal
consideration.
CARRIED
|
4. |
2005-171 2005-171-1 |
SONYA
SERAFIN, MUNICIPAL
ENGINEER, Re
|
Sonya Serafin, 2515 Dalhousie Street,
indicated that the existing hedge, which encroaches upon municipal property, is
in line with an existing plum tree, providing a nice flow between the two.
Responding to questions from the Committee, the Municipal Engineer noted
that although the fence does not pose any safety concerns, when mature, the
hedge would infringe on the line of sight, causing concerns in this regard.
Ms. Serafin responded to this by
noting that it would not be an issue if the hedge growth was limited.
It was pointed out that the hedge in question has replaced a hedge in
the same location that existed for many years before, and the view was
expressed that the boulevard encroachment agreement could ensure that the
height and width of the hedge is limited to avoid any safety hazards with
inadequate sight lines.
The opposing view that the hedge would capture a significant portion of
public land for private use was noted.
MOVED by Councillor Carson
Seconded by Councillor Macey-Brown, That permission for a boulevard
encroachment at 2515 Dalhousie Street be approved for the purposes of retaining
an existing fence, hedge, and irrigation system, subject to the owners entering
into a boulevard encroachment agreement with the Municipality, and that the
agreement limit the height of the hedge to 1.0 metres and the width to a
distance approved by the Municipal Engineer.
CARRIED
(Councillor Jensen against the motion)
|
5. |
2005-172 2005-172-1 |
LARRY
MYERS, MUNICIPAL
ENGINEER, Re
|
Responding to questions from the Committee, the Municipal Engineer referred
to his recommendation that the request for permission to encroach on the
boulevard be denied, noting that the proposal would capture public land for
private use.
Larry Meyers, Landscape Architect,
noted that the previous owners maintained the boulevard in much the same way as
was being proposed by the new owners, and that the owners were now seeking to
have the encroachment authorized by the Committee.
Mr. Meyers, on the request of members of the Committee, drew attention
to the proposed new plantings, and concerns were expressed by members of the
Committee in this regard.
MOVED by Councillor Jensen
Seconded by Councillor Macey-Brown, That the request for permission for
a boulevard encroachment at
CARRIED
LAND
USE SECTION: (Acting Chairman –
|
6. |
2005-173 |
DIRECTOR
OF BUILDING AND PLANNING, Re
|
It was noted that the requested variance for
MOVED by Councillor Macey-Brown
Seconded by Councillor Herbert, That it be recommended to Council that
the plans for the exterior and interior renovations of 3045 Uplands Road be
approved as to siting and architectural design subject to the issuance of a
development variance permit with respect to the interior and total side lot
line setbacks, and further that a resolution to authorize the noted variances
be brought forward for Council’s consideration.
CARRIED
|
7. |
2005-174 2005-164 2005-164-1 2005-164-2 |
DIRECTOR
OF BUILDING AND PLANNING, LEE
DIMOS, ROLF
AND DAWN JOHANSEN, May 12, 2005 ELIZABETH
BRENNAN AND DEREK TRIMMER, Re
Proposed Amendments to Screens and Fences Bylaw No. 3536 |
Attention was drawn to
the staff report with respect to the Screens and Fences Bylaw, and the
information regarding commercially available fence panels.
The Director of Building
and Planning noted that while other local governments do not make a distinction
between a solid and lattice portion of a fence, Oak Bay does, and the municipal
regulations do not reflect what is widely available in the retail
marketplace. He further noted that
Mr. Dimos, 2385 Zela
Street,
noted that his fence height is standard at 4.5 feet solid fence and 1.5 feet of
lattice, expressing the view that no commercially available lattice would meet
the current
MOVED by Councillor
Jensen
Seconded by Councillor
Herbert, That a bylaw amendment be brought forward that defines lattice in
terms of what is commercially available, increases the permitted height of the
solid portion of a fence to 4.5 feet and decreases the lattice portion of a
fence to 1.5 feet for fences abutting a street.
ADJOURNMENT:
MOVED by
Seconded by
CARRIED
The
meeting adjourned at
Certified
Correct
|
Municipal
Clerk |
|
Acting
Chairman, Land Use Section |
|
Chairman,
Recreation Section |
|
Chairman,
Public Works Section |
|
Chairman,
Regulatory Section |
|
|