Is there an equivalent EDPA in Oak Bay? I know I need to call their tree guy if I think a tree needs removed and require written permission if ts a gary oak but apart from that I can plant my garden as I see fit. If this is such a critical situation shouldnt it be regional?
Saanich EDPA
#161
Posted 14 May 2017 - 03:54 PM
#162
Posted 14 May 2017 - 04:22 PM
In your scenario, winning means proving that your land has no environmental value relating to native ecosystems or the goods and services they provide. The whole thing isn't set up to provide for removals except during the development process. Which none (0) of these people have engaged in. Saanich staff or their consultants have done exactly as you suggest, viewing the properties from adjacent public lands.
How exactly are you keeping score? Depending on who you believe, Saanich is either 95% right or 95% wrong. Strangely, council prefers the idea that they are 95% wrong.
Why does Saanich need to hand inspect these properties first? Why not inspect them when somebody inquires or submits a building permit or development permit?
#163
Posted 14 May 2017 - 04:24 PM
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.
You are kidding, right? Any idea how much ground truthing every single property within the EDPA would cost Saanich tax payers? And how long? And how specifically should they all be surveyed to make this right for you? Just a general look over, or should each and every specie of grass be studied? Any idea how many people actually apply for an EDPA every year? A staff report in the spring said 8. 8 who live within the EDPA applied for a development permit. Any thoughts as to the argument home owners would make if the Saanich-provided biologist came back and said their was an SEI on their property they would need to protect?
#164
Posted 14 May 2017 - 04:29 PM
You are kidding, right? Any idea how much ground truthing every single property within the EDPA would cost Saanich tax payers?
Less than the cumulative cost every affected taxpayer has to pay to hire a biologist to get the thing looked at.
#165
Posted 14 May 2017 - 04:34 PM
#166
Posted 14 May 2017 - 04:44 PM
#167
Posted 14 May 2017 - 05:06 PM
But VHF, only 8 people have to do that every year. Not 2200.
OK, I see that number. But won't many sales transactions also call for a report or exemption? ie. would I buy a home not knowing what's up? And if only 8 are expected to be affected, why are 30 or 40 or whatever already coming forward?
#168
Posted 14 May 2017 - 05:18 PM
Oak Bay has 'Natural Environment Development Permit Areas'
And it seems they are a bit more reasonable indicating
Exemptions The following do not require a development permit:
1. Repair, maintenance, alteration or reconstruction of existing legal buildings, structures or utilities provided there is no alteration of undisturbed land or vegetation
2. Emergency repairs to existing structures or utilities where a potential safety hazard exists
3. Removal of trees deemed to be hazardous and a threat to life or safety, as determined by a qualified arborist
4. Small-scale removal by hand of invasive species or noxious weeds
5. Larger-scale removal of invasive species or noxious weeds in accordance with a vegetation management plan prepared by a Registered Professional Biologist or other qualified professional
6. Within an existing landscaped area that is outside of a Streamside Protection and Enhancement Area, the placement of non-permanent structures, such as benches, tables and garden ornaments and gardening and yard maintenance activities, such as lawn mowing, tree and shrub pruning, vegetation planting and minor soil disturbances that do not alter the contours of the land
7. The construction of a small accessory building (maximum area of 10 m2 ), such as a gazebo, garden shed or playhouse, if all the following apply: x No trees are removed x The building is located outside of a Streamside Protection and Enhancement Area
Seems pretty reasonable to me, they are saying be reasonable, you can manage your gardens and put up your swing set or put your hot tub in with a gazebo and we dont need to know about it....Seems like if Saanich indicated a similar position then there wouldnt be this 'father-knows-best' leftover from Frank Leonard days rule by diktat postion.
Old saying that Saanich could consider....'you reap what you sow'
#169
Posted 14 May 2017 - 06:31 PM
"One possible idea is that once the process has been defined for property owners making application to have their property removed from the EDPA, we do exactly that. We would need your help with this. We would need volunteers to walk around neighbourhoods knocking on doors and getting all EDPA property owners on board. For example, we see there are 73 EDPA properties on Parker Ave.. If we get everyone on board, we submit an application for 73 properties to be removed from the EDPA."
The clustered applications that went through on Saturday were assembled using just such tactics.
#170
Posted 14 May 2017 - 06:40 PM
#171
Posted 15 May 2017 - 08:25 AM
The entire EDPA undertaking is an effort to circumvent the process of how traditional land covenants are legally established.
#172
Posted 15 May 2017 - 01:25 PM
Email newsletter if you want to subscribe just email them at saanichedpa@gmail.com
Congratulation to the 29 property owners who were successful with their applications in having their properties removed from the EDAP. Council voted 5/3. The councillors that voted against these applications were Judy Brownoff, Vicki Sanders and Dean Murdock.
Council voted 5/3 on the motion to Temporarily Remove all RS Properties from the EDPA. The councillors that voted against this motion were Judy Brownoff, Vicki Sanders and Dean Murdock.
Saanich staff had snuck the following clause into this motion which would have completely undermined it. Thankfully Councillor Haynes caught this and after some discussion it was removed from the motion. Councillor Wergeland indicated had it not been caught it would apply to any lot. In other words, any RS property, essentially negating the motion
Again lots of loss of faith and trust in staff.
Thank you to all of you that took the time to attend this meeting and to the many of you that sent letters to Mayor and Council.
On another note, if you know of someone that would like to be added to our email list, please let us know. Yesterday at the meeting we were approached by a few people asking to be included. Our numbers continue to grow.
http://www.saanichne...ties-from-edpa/
Saanich Citizens for a Responsible EDPA Society
#173
Posted 15 May 2017 - 01:26 PM
"Temporarily Removed?" So does that mean they were only removed for now, but staff will re-assess and find some way to reinstate them into the EDPA?
Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.
#174
Posted 15 May 2017 - 02:45 PM
#176
Posted 15 May 2017 - 04:08 PM
- VicHockeyFan likes this
Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.
#177
Posted 15 May 2017 - 04:20 PM
For Cassidy, just in case you weren't trolling when you asked why environmental protection measures weren't in place 50 or 100 years ago:
You realize that every farmer on every farm in North America still does this ... right?
I mean, do you think they drive into town 130 miles away to recycle the oil at the local oil recycling center?
Yet the world still turns.
Edited by Cassidy, 15 May 2017 - 04:22 PM.
#178
Posted 15 May 2017 - 04:27 PM
When we were building one of our warehouses in Central Saanich we uncovered 2 large holes where cows had been buried. The ground was basically clay and the level of decomposition after 50-75 years was minimal, the smell however.... Yup thats what farmers did when a cow died so not surprised what else they would have buried
#179
Posted 15 May 2017 - 04:59 PM
For Cassidy, just in case you weren't trolling when you asked why environmental protection measures weren't in place 50 or 100 years ago:
Used motor oil from leaks goes from our streets into storm drains and right into the ocean. They should be thankful that its filtered through the ground first.
#180
Posted 15 May 2017 - 05:53 PM
Use the page links at the lower-left to go to the next page to read additional posts.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users