MINUTES
of a regular meeting of COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE of the Municipal
|
PRESENT: |
Councillor H. Braithwaite Councillor A. R. Cassidy (arrived at 8:10
p.m.) Councillor S. F. B. Carson 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, R. Thomassen Municipal
Treasurer, P. A. Walker Director
of Engineering Services, D. Marshall Superintendent
of Public Works, P. Barnett |
PUBLIC
WORKS SECTION:
(Chairman – Councillor Herbert)
|
1. |
2008-246 2008-246-1 2008-246-2 |
MUNICIPAL
ADMINISTRATOR, September 26, 2008 CAPITAL
REGIONAL DISTRICT, September 4, 2008 KAY
(BURT-SMITH) POWELL, September 22, 2008 Re
Capital Regional District Organic Waste Pilot Program |
Councillor
Herbert drew attention to the Municipal Administrator’s memorandum with respect
to the Capital Regional District’s letter giving notice that the CRD-funded organic
waste collection pilot program would be terminating as of December 31, 2008. The CRD, it was noted, is requesting a
decision on whether or not Oak Bay intends to continue with organics collection
in the pilot areas. It was pointed out
that the CRD proposes to implement a landfill ban on kitchen waste in 2012, and
may possibly include curbside organic waste pickup when its current recycling
contract ends at that time.
The
various options available to Oak Bay as laid out in the memorandum were
discussed. Responding to questions from
the Committee, the Municipal Administrator noted that if Oak Bay was to
continue on with the organics collection in the current pilot areas, and if the
same rate of participation continued, then the current staffing levels and
truck used now would likely be adequate, and the overtime costs would be in the
order of $5,000 per year, assuming the participating residents have to purchase
the collection bags themselves versus receiving them for free as they now do
through the CRD. Providing the bags free
of charge to the residents would add an additional $30,000 per year, said Mr
Cochrane. He advised, however, that
continuing on with organics collection in a select area of the Municipality
does raise concerns regarding providing a dual standard of service in
comparison with the rest of the Municipality.
A municipality wide service, said Mr. Cochrane, would address the
concerns regarding a two-tier system but would eliminate the “co-collection”
option.
Responding
to questions regarding the cost of a municipality wide service, the
Superintendent of Public Works advised that if organic waste collection was to
be expanded over the whole Municipality it would require the purchase of a new
truck estimated at $322,000 and approximately another $218,000 per year for operating
costs, plus tote costs and tipping fees.
The
discussion turned to the feasibility of residents opting in or out of an
organics collection service provided by the Municipality on a “user pay” basis and
Mr. Cochrane advised that the issues surrounding costing and administration of
such a complicated system would be very difficult to manage without knowing the
number of participants.
It
was noted that the pilot program has been very well received by the
participants, and the view was expressed that options to offer the service to
all in the municipality who wish to participate would be desirable, whereas
continuing the program in the pilot areas only would not necessarily be
equitable.
MOVED
by Councillor Jensen,
Seconded by Councillor Copley, That staff be
requested to provide a high level feasibility study on a fee for service option
for the collection of organic kitchen waste and to explore the possible extension
of the organics collection pilot project with the Capital Regional District
until such time as the Municipality has had the opportunity to complete and
review the study.
The
difficulty of providing such a service where the actual rate of participation was
unknown and where there is only one opportunity to tax for the service, were
discussed, and although there was support for the concept of such a service, it
was the majority view that without information regarding participation levels,
it may not be feasible for staff to provide the requested information.
It was noted that the Town of View Royal has
been participating in the same organic collection pilot project but contracts
out its curbside garbage collection service. It was suggested that View Royal may be a good
source of further information with respect to organics collection and the model
it uses.
The question was then called.
DEFEATED
(Councillors
Braithwaite, Carson, Cassidy and Herbert against the motion)
There was consensus to, at
|
2. |
2008-236 2008-236-1 |
DIRECTOR
OF ENGINEERING SERVICES, September 10, 2008 ACACIA
LANDSCAPE INC., August 12, 2008 Re Boulevard
Encroachment Application – 825 Linkleas Avenue (Revised) |
Responding
to questions, the Municipal Administrator advised that the previous encroachment
request was denied because it would have obstructed access to a storm drain located
directly below ground. He noted that the
revised request would see the proposed wall encroaching onto the boulevard to a
lesser degree.
MOVED by Councillor Carson
Seconded by Councillor Cassidy, That it be
recommended to Council that permission be granted for an encroachment onto the
boulevard adjacent to 825 Linkleas Avenue, limited in form and extent to the
plantings shown on the portion of the boulevard on the landscape plan appended
to correspondence item no. 2008-236-1, subject to the Owners entering into the
standard form of boulevard encroachment agreement, and subject to the wall location
being a minimum of 2 metres back from the curb edge.
Steve McLeish, Acadia Landscape Inc., in attendance on behalf
of the applicants and responding to a question from the Committee advised that
having the wall set back 2 metres from the curb would be acceptable.
The question was then called.
CARRIED
LAND
USE SECTION:
(Chairman –
|
3. |
2008-247 |
DIRECTOR OF BUILDING AND PLANNING, September
30, 2008 Re
Development Variance Permit Application – 2342 Hamiota Street |
Responding to a question, Ben Beaudet, owner,
advised that, although he has not shared the plans for his renovation with his
neighbours, he has spoken to some of them about the work proposed and has not
heard of any objections at that time.
The Director of Building and Planning advised
that the existing front porch is non-conforming with respect to the front lot
line setback, noting that the new deck would extend approximately six feet
further into the setback.
MOVED by Councillor Jensen
Seconded by Councillor Copley, That a resolution
authorizing the issuance of a development variance permit for 2342 Hamiota
Street as outlined in correspondence item no. 2008-247 be prepared and brought
forward to Council for consideration.
CARRIED
REGULATORY
SECTION:
(Chairman – Councillor Braithwaite)
|
4. |
2008-248 |
DIRECTOR OF BUILDING AND PLANNING, August 19,
2008 Re
Report on Development Variance Permit Application Fees |
Attention was drawn to the memorandum from the Director of Building and
Planning which compares Oak
Bay’s development variance permit application fee with other local governments,
and provides possible options for implementing a fee schedule based on the
scope of the project, as had been requested by the Committee earlier this year.
While a member of the Committee expressed his
support for making no change to the current application fee, noting that Oak Bay’s
fee is in the middle of the range of what the other local governments charge,
it was the majority view of the Committee to reduce the base fee and introduce a
sliding scale fee structure based on the number of variances requested, as
described in Option 3 of Mr. Thomassen’s memorandum.
Responding to questions, the Municipal
Administrator advised that Option 3 could be workable, and he noted that there
are two types of costs involved in processing a development variance permit
application, which are plan review costs which are related to the actual
variance(s) being requested, and notice costs, which are not related to the
variances requested, but to the number of notices required to be mailed.
MOVED by Councillor Herbert
Seconded by Councillor Copley, That an amendment
to the Land Use Application Procedure and
Fee Assessment Bylaw to reduce the base Development Variance Permit
application fee to $325.00 plus $65.00 for each additional variance be prepared
and brought forward to Council for consideration.
The Municipal Administrator noted that some
Development Permit applications involve variances as well, and, assuming that
the base fee stayed at the current $500, the Committee may wish to consider
implementing the same sliding scale for additional variances as well.
MOVED by Councillor Herbert
Seconded by Councillor Copley, That the motion
be amended to include in the bylaw amendment an additional fee of $65 for each
additional variance requested in conjunction with a Development Permit application.
CARRIED
The question on the main motion was then called.
CARRIED
TRAFFIC
AND PEDESTRIAN SAFETY: (Chairman –
|
5. |
2008-249 -- 2008-249-1 2008-249-2 2008-249-3 2008-249-4 2008-249-5 2008-249-6 2008-249-7 2008-249-8 2008-249-9 2008-249-10 2008-249-11 2008-249-12 2008-249-13 2008-249-14 2008-249-15 2008-249-16 2008-249-17 2008-249-18 2008-249-19 2008-249-20 2008-249-21 2008-249-22 2008-249-23 2008-249-24 2008-249-25 2008-199 |
SUMMARY OF MONTEREY/ST. ANN BIKE LANE SURVEY
RESPONSES EXCERPT FROM MINUTES
OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE, August 11, 2008 ALLAN ARNEIL, August 21, 2008 PAM GUILBAULT, August 22, 2008 M & J HALL-PATCH, August 22, 2008 JACK SUTHERLAND, August 25, 2008 GLADYS BROWNE, [Undated] KATHARINE SPENCER, August 23, 2008 KARL PREUSS, September 2, 2008 M & B EVANS, [Undated] GAIL SAIGER, September 9, 2008 RICHARD AND JILL LEE, September 9, 2008 ELIZABETH DOHAN, September 15, 2008 STEPHEN PETZING, September 15, 2008 JUSTINE SOJONKY-GALLAGHER, September 18, 2008 MARGARET LEBEDIS, September 22, 2008 CHARLES BARAN, September 22, 2008 DAVID WONG, September 23, 2008 KAREN AND THOMAS BURCH, [Undated] J HARRIS, [Undated] THOR AND ROBERTA HENRICH, September 25, 2008 KEVIN AND FRAN CONLIN, September 25, 2008 SITLONE VOGEL-HORRIDGE, September 25, 2008 DENIS
PARÉ, September 26, 2008 IRIS WRIGHT, [Undated] COLIN SMITH AND ROBERTA WEBER SMITH, September
26, 2008 LYNN GORDON-FINDLAY, September 26, 2008 DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING SERVICES, August 7,
2008 Re
St. Ann / Monterey Avenue Cycling
Corridor Questionnaire, August – September 2008 |
Councillor Copley noted that at its meeting held
August 11, 2008, the Committee of the Whole requested that staff distribute a
questionnaire to residents of properties on St. Ann Street and Monterey Avenue
between Bowker Avenue and McNeill Avenue, soliciting their views on the bicycle
lane concept raised at that time and asking for any other comments on bicycle
safety along the route.
In reviewing the summary of responses received,
it was observed that most of the respondents were not in favour of bicycle
lanes but expressed support for improving signage, reducing speed, and
educating cyclists with respect to traffic safety.
Attention was drawn to the limited number of
crosswalks along the routes to and from Monterey Middle School and it was
suggested that additional crosswalks be installed on Bowker Avenue at St. Ann
Street and on Windsor Road at Hampshire Road, and on Windsor Road at Monterey
Avenue.
It was also recommended that bicycle symbol stencils
be painted on the road surface as well as adding signs that indicate motorist
are to share the road with (youth) cyclists.
The vehicle speeds, noted a member of the Committee, also need to be
investigated.
A member of the Committee commented on the many
good ideas found in the summary of responses report and letters from the
residents and suggested that the Municipality go further than just focusing on
more crosswalks, signage and speed, but to have a community conversation that
would include education and public awareness about this issue. It was suggested
that the Police Department may offer educational traffic safety classes which
would assist in that one aspect.
Sandi Piercy, resident, commented that with the
change in traffic patterns for the students attending Monterey Middle School,
it would provide a safer environment if parking was only permitted on one side
of Monterey Avenue between McNeill Avenue and Windsor Road as this area becomes
very congested with cyclists, parked vehicles and motorists during certain
times of the day.
MOVED by Councillor Herbert
Seconded by Councillor Braithwaite, That it be
recommended to Council that bicycle stencils be painted on the road surface and
that bike route signs be erected along the Monterey /St. Ann Corridor; and
further, that a traffic control order be prepared ordering the installation of
crosswalks in the following locations:
That the vehicle speeds along the St. Ann/Monterey
Avenue corridor be investigated and a report
brought forward to the Committee of the Whole.
The Director of Engineering Services reminded
the Committee of the work done by the Greater Victoria School District along
with the Parent Advisory Councils with respect to ‘Safer School Routes’ in
response to the middle school reconfiguration, suggesting that the information
prepared in that regard might prove helpful to the Committee. A member of the Committee acknowledged the
study, stating his support of any recommendations that are in line with and not
in conflict with the direction put forward by the Committee.
The question was then called.
CARRIED
RECREATION
SECTION:
(Chairman – Councillor Carson)
|
6. |
2008-250 |
OAK BAY PARKS AND
RECREATION COMMISSION, October 1, 2008 Re
Location of Scented Garden |
Councillor Carson noted that although there was
no quorum at the Parks and Recreation Commission meeting held October 1, 2008, it
was the consensus of those in attendance that the proposed relocation of the enabling
scented garden to Windsor Park was an acceptable alternative to Willows Park.
MOVED by Councillor Carson
Seconded by Councillor Herbert, That it be
recommended to Council that approval be given to relocating the enabling
scented garden to the north east corner of Windsor Park.
CARRIED
ADJOURNMENT:
MOVED by Councillor Braithwaite
Seconded by Councillor Herbert,
That the meeting of Committee of the Whole be adjourned.
CARRIED
The meeting adjourned at 9:36 p.m.
Certified Correct:
|
Municipal
Clerk |
|
Chairman,
Public Works Section |
|
Chairman,
Land Use Section |
|
Chairman,
Regulatory Section |
|
Chairman,
Traffic & Pedestrian Section |
|
Chairman,
Recreation Section |