262 replies to this topic

[VicHockeyFan]

Members of council Saturday clashed sharply as Saanich is one step away from temporarily suspending the provisions of a controversial bylaw designed to protect environmentally sensitive areas (ESAs).

 

Saanich council voted 5-3 to give three readings to a bylaw that would temporarily exclude single-residential properties from the provisions of the Environmental Development Permit Area (EDPA) bylaw designed to preserve and restore ESAs against development. Most of the properties in the EDPA fall into the category of single-residential properties.

 

Mayor Richard Atwell joined Couns. Susan Brice, Fred Haynes, Colin Plant, and Leif Wergeland in supporting the temporary suspension motion. Couns. Judy Brownoff, Dean Murdock and Vicki Sanders opposed it.

 

http://www.saanichne...ties-from-edpa/

[VicHockeyFan]

I don't know.  I don't like how someone else decides - without public input - what a "sensitive ecosystem" is.  Because you can take that to any extreme you want, really.

 

 

It would seem that folks who don't like to be interfered with in any way choose not to live in well serviced  municipalities and regions, but instead choose to live in an unincorporated region of (in our case) B.C., such that they can build what they want, when they wan and do so without any interference whatsoever ... they can essentially live their lives un-accosted by bureaucrats and their functionaries.

 

 

See, and that's the nutty thing.  If I go built in the middle of the woods in Atlin, I'm probably wrecking some type of sensitive ecosystem, but the fact is I'm surrounded by tens of thousands of acres of it.  Just like we are on Vancouver Island.  If I pull some native grass at the edge of my lawn in Cadboro Bay, who gives a rat's ass?  It's not like we are short of it, and it's not like the next door neighbour will be affected.

[LJ]

Langford doesn't have a tree removal bylaw. Unless you are in an already designated sensitive area it's a free for all.... As evidenced by looking at google maps.

I'm sorry but you are incorrect.

[dasmo]

"If there are no designated areas on a property than the property owner is free to remove whatever vegetation they wish."
http://www.langford....ee-removal.html

[LJ]

Well apparently I am in a "sensitive ecosystem and habitat area" which about half the city of Langford is in. 

[slow1234]

I think council made a big mistake today. There was no need to remove the properties or suspend the bylaw. I do not think any of the applicants demonstrated any where near sufficient justification or hardship to have their properties removed. Why not wait until Diamond Head has completed their review? Removing properties and suspending EDPA is significant regression and means Saanich no longer can be considered to have progressive environmental protections. Boo council (well, at least boo 5 of them).

[Benn]

That would be Langford's version of the EDPA... Which in the next month may see Langford having more comprehensive restrictions around development in sensitive ecosystem than Saanich

[VicHockeyFan]

.... means Saanich no longer can be considered to have progressive environmental protections. Boo council (well, at least boo 5 of them).

 

For some of us, "progressive" is not a flattering term.   

 

Anyway, welcome to the forum slow!

 

A couple things though.  How many people that live in Saanich but outside the EDPA are fighting to support this?  Because consider, all those that live in it and support it are free to continue to live by the letter of the statute, or even apply more stringent measures to their own property if they want.  They are not forced to groom their property differently.

[slow1234]

Anyway, welcome to the forum slow!

How many people that live in Saanich but outside the EDPA are fighting to support this?

Thanks for the welcome!

I can be counted as a Saanich homeowner whose property is not in the EDPA. I, however, would enthusiastically welcome that designation on my property and those of my neighbours. It would add increased protection to the natural value our little pocket of Gary oak ecosystem has. This environment was why we bought where we did and it would be a shame to see it lost - the greatest threat being neighbouring subdivision and houses jammed it at max profit to developers and greatest expense to environmental integrity.

I could not attend the hearing this morning, but did submit letters in support of the EDPA and have spoken a similar message at a previous council meeting. Unfortunately the anti-EDPA folks were much more effective at getting their interests heard.

Hopefully the "temporary" suspension is indeed temporary and the EDPA is restored.

[Sparky]

Welcome to vibrantvictoria slow1234.

It is my opinion that there are a lot of people that disliked the way that the EDPA was shoved down their throats.

The process wasn't exactly an excellent example of democracy.

[Benn]

Sparky: A complaint was made with BC Ombudsman, regarding the process implementing the bylaw. They reviewed, it, it was done to requirements.
 
VHF: The public check provides some insight, including how many people who live outside of the EDPA, support it: http://www.saanich.c... 2016 FINAL.pdf
 

It suggests that:

 

225 feedback forms were submitted by EDPA property owners.

58 were from non-EDPA property owners

33 were anonymous

 

I'm not sure if 58 is a little or a lot, compared to 225.

 

BUT you will also find in the document, at the bottom of page 6, that across all categories of landowners, a majority had a medium or high level of support for the bylaw.

 

The value in the bylaw is not how it applies only to an individual property, it is in how it applies on an ecosystem basis across multiple properties.

 

For what it's worth, I own property in the EDPA.

[Sparky]

Sparky: A complaint was made with BC Ombudsman, regarding the process implementing the bylaw. They reviewed, it, it was done to requirements..

 

I did not say that the required procedure had not been followed.

 

What I said was that some people did not like the "way it was shoved down their throats".

 

Getting a notice in the mail about a public hearing taking place regarding a zoning change application for a property two blocks away is a lot different than getting a notice in the mail about a zoning change application by a municipality that is going to have a direct affect on "YOUR" property use.

 

Big difference.....same procedure. The Ombudsman was correct, the procedure was followed. That doesn't mean that some people didn't enjoy the procedure in this particular case.

 

Perhaps a registered letter would have been more appropriate when your property is being affected directly.

 

For the record I do not own property in the EDPA. Mrs. Sparky does though. She just inherited property from her mother who was in a home with dementia when the proposed bylaw was being discussed. Neither of them had the faintest idea that there was a proposed bylaw change taking place, or of how this NEW bylaw would affect their property rights. 

[Benn]

That's a pretty weak argument. If the consultation process was deficient then why is nobody trying to fix that? And how does a requirement for development permit impact your property rights? Ie privacy, quiet enjoyment, etc.

[VicHockeyFan]

That's a pretty weak argument. If the consultation process was deficient then why is nobody trying to fix that? And how does a requirement for development permit impact your property rights? Ie privacy, quiet enjoyment, etc.

 

It's clearly a substantial change.  As evidenced by the increasing numbers having to apply to City Hall every month now.  No other change in Saanich history has caused so many homeowners to have to go through such a complex process in such a short time span.  It's not a smart plan to subject so many of your voters to.  Elected officials are clearly reacting.

[rjag]

Its like negative option billing where you have to opt out. That went over like a lead balloon when Shaw tried it 20 years ago.

 

Saanich has not done a good job communicating the process and restrictions as evidenced by the numbers of people objecting. 

 

Yet its pretty clear what folks are upset about

 

 

 

When do I need an Environmental Development Permit?

The Local Government Act prohibits the alteration of land, subdivision and construction within an environmental development permit area unless you have an exemption or permit.

Contact Saanich Environmental Services to discuss your project. We will identify exemptions like:

• Hazardous trees
• Existing garden and landscaping maintenance
• Existing lawn mowing
• Picnic tables, benches, swing sets etc.
• Small outbuildings like a gazebo or shed
• Invasive plant removal
• Environmental projects
• Agriculture
• Slope stabilization
• Planting native plants
• Existing structure repairs and maintenance
• Rebuilding on existing foundations
• Low-impact paths and fences
• Natural state covenant areas
• Projects outside the ESA boundary
• Vegetation management in fire interfaces

 

The way this is worded, it appears you have to call Saanich and ask permission to move your kids swingset or what parts of your lawn you can maintain. 

[spanky123]

^ That is the way the bylaw is worded but not the practical implementation. I have claimed many times and nobody has ever corrected me that there is not a single homeowner in Saanich who has been prevented from mowing their lawn, planting their garden or moving a swingset. People may not think that mail notification or publication in the newspaper of an upcoming meeting is sufficient notication but the reality is that no matter how you provide notice there will be people who deem it insufficient.

 

I attended the hearing yesterday and most of the people there appeared to be the ones impacted by the EDPA which makes sense. Almost all of the properties were removed from the EDPA (one was partially removed). I think that the decision should have been reserved until the outcome of the investigation of Ted Lea was completed but nevertheless here we are.

[Benn]

VHF you're clearly buying into the propaganda. I won't argue about the elected officials reacting. I'd guess there are about 100 people actively upset. MAYBE 30-50 upset enough to write a letter or get up and speak in a public forum. That small segment of the 70,000 Saanich residents are who is driving the decisions.

Read that PDF I linked above. The bylaw received the same amount of feedback forms as the amendment for the animals bylaw to allow for keeping chickens. In the 12 month check in, the same number of people gave input as in 1 month for the Uptown Douglas Corridor. What is not equivalent, is the media coverage. The people lined up at City Hall aren't impacted at all. There is no reason for them to do that, aside from the fact a lobby group knocked on their door and told them Saanich had made their backyard into a park, and that they weren't allowed to mow their lawns anymore. It's not like this exemption process requires much of a financial outlay. Most of the homeowners didn't even speak to their requests. They had to pull title from Land Titles, fill out a two page form, and get a free biologist report to go along with their removal application.

[VicHockeyFan]

^ A free biologist report was made available to them by Saanich?  Like someone says, it seems like negative billing.  Saanich slaps it on everyone, and now almost everyone (or is it everyone?) that has applied has had it removed.  What kind of a designation is that if they have been wrong 95% of the time so far?  That's bad application of "science" if they only hit the mark 5% of the time.

[Benn]

No, a free biologist report made available by a volunteer advisor to Saanich Citizens for a Responsible EDPA Society. The Society that would like to see it removed from all private property, permanently. Everyone who has applied for removal has had a free biologist report from this same individual. Everyone who has applied so far has had it removed, regardless if they have any pockets of remnant ecosystem, endangered species, etc., or not. 

[VicHockeyFan]

No, a free biologist report made available by a volunteer advisor to Saanich Citizens for a Responsible EDPA Society. 

 

Right, so Saanich does not provide a free biologist.  Under this negative-option situation you have to arrange your own.  Luckily they have found a free one, for now.  Although he is under some type of complaint investigation.  If I wanted a different one, I'd need to pay to prove the municipality wrong.  And if I "won" my case, I'm still out of pocket.

 

See, that's "negative-option".  

 

I do not care if 5 people are upset with the EDPA, or 500 are, or 5,000 or 55,000 are.  Saanich needs to hand inspect all these properties first.  They all border on a park, or lake, or places where municipal staff can see the property.  They should spend a few years getting it all right.  Not 5% right, as is their score now.