Jump to content

      



























Photo

Property owner publicly slams Saanich


  • Please log in to reply
19 replies to this topic

#1 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 16 March 2017 - 03:37 PM

The owners of longstanding Saanich company Islands West Produce have taken a cheeky shot at city hall.

 

After a five-year process to develop the family property, brothers Ian and Wayne Fatt made the decision to erect a sign on 4227 Dieppe Rd. that says, among other things, to develop in Langford instead of Saanich.

 

“We made the sign because we’re pissed off,” Ian Fatt said. “No [builder or developer] wants to open their mouth to criticize Saanich because they have to continue to work with people [at municipal hall] to get a permit.”

 

http://www.saanichne.../416255754.html


  • jonny likes this
<p><span style="font-size:12px;"><em><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">"I don’t need a middle person in my pizza slice transaction" <strong>- zoomer, April 17, 2018</strong></span></em></span>

#2 LeoVictoria

LeoVictoria
  • Member
  • 3,471 posts

Posted 16 March 2017 - 04:23 PM

Nice! Although based on the responses from councillors the message was not received. "We need more staff" is not the solution to too much bureaucracy
  • jonny likes this

#3 nagel

nagel
  • Member
  • 5,751 posts

Posted 16 March 2017 - 04:54 PM

That company has been fighting with the neighbourhood association the whole time. I know the guy who's the head of it. He's not crazy like many of the other CA heads. Maybe the company is just not that good at negotiation.
  • VicHockeyFan and Jill like this

#4 LeoVictoria

LeoVictoria
  • Member
  • 3,471 posts

Posted 16 March 2017 - 05:08 PM

Right. Although it seems like Saanich being the slowest of the municipalities is independent of this single case

#5 dasmo

dasmo

    Grand Master ✔

  • Member
  • 15,239 posts

Posted 16 March 2017 - 06:00 PM

True, might be other things going on. I got my building permit in very short order in View Royal. My neighbour took years but they started blasting without any permits or anything.... talking to them you would think VR was a pain but I found them rather quick and easy to work with.

#6 rjag

rjag
  • Member
  • 6,363 posts
  • LocationSi vis pacem para bellum

Posted 17 March 2017 - 07:14 AM

I wouldnt be surprised if it was Saanich's way of trying to frustrate the business to relocate elsewhere and convert the whole block to residential. That way no more trucks going down there at 5AM



#7 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 17 March 2017 - 07:16 AM

You'd think they might want to, too.

 

screenshot-www.google.ca-2017-03-17-08-16-14.png


<p><span style="font-size:12px;"><em><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">"I don’t need a middle person in my pizza slice transaction" <strong>- zoomer, April 17, 2018</strong></span></em></span>

#8 nagel

nagel
  • Member
  • 5,751 posts

Posted 17 March 2017 - 07:19 AM

I'd say they shouldn't really be there in a residential neighbourhood, but I don't think there should actually be residences that close to a highway either.  I wish we'd learn from such mistakes but here we go in Langford doing the exact same thing - lining the highway with houses.



#9 rjag

rjag
  • Member
  • 6,363 posts
  • LocationSi vis pacem para bellum

Posted 17 March 2017 - 07:22 AM

I'd say they shouldn't really be there in a residential neighbourhood, but I don't think there should actually be residences that close to a highway either.  I wish we'd learn from such mistakes but here we go in Langford doing the exact same thing - lining the highway with houses.

 

Yup, but the business was there long before there were houses, kind of like the planes in the inner harbour. The houses along Douglas to the south cant see the highway due to the berm and the barrier.



#10 nagel

nagel
  • Member
  • 5,751 posts

Posted 17 March 2017 - 07:28 AM

Yup, but the business was there long before there were houses, kind of like the planes in the inner harbour. The houses along Douglas to the south cant see the highway due to the berm and the barrier.

Yep.  And they should be able to stay and develop.  My own experiences with Saanich do not correlate with that this company is saying though.

 

I wonder if the berm considerably reduces the health consequences of living right by the highway. 

 

I also wonder if I'm within 500 feet of HWY 1.  Probably close.


  • rjag and vicstargazer like this

#11 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 17 March 2017 - 07:35 AM

Well, at least the berm does a good job on sound.  It's quite remarkable.


<p><span style="font-size:12px;"><em><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">"I don’t need a middle person in my pizza slice transaction" <strong>- zoomer, April 17, 2018</strong></span></em></span>

#12 tedward

tedward
  • Member
  • 1,974 posts
  • LocationJames Bay

Posted 17 March 2017 - 08:18 AM

 "We need more staff" is not the solution to too much bureaucracy

 

Wait, what?  If you are building a house with only one carpenter would it not logically increase the pace towards completion to hire more carpenters?

 

It appears to me that your default position is that "regulations are bad" whereas my default position is that "regulations are there for a reason". In either case we can review the regulations but to get through the system as it exists right now it seems to me that, "more staff" is precisely what will be needed to speed up the process.


Lake Side Buoy - LEGO Nut - History Nerd - James Bay resident


#13 UDeMan

UDeMan
  • Member
  • 744 posts

Posted 17 March 2017 - 08:50 AM

Discussion of the Development is on page 7

 

http://northquadra.c.../spring2016.pdf

 

Redevelopment of 4247, 4253 and 4255 Dieppe Road – current use as a Food Processing Plant: We were most disappointed with Council’s Oct. 6, 2015 decision to support this proposal which involved three distinct components. One part of the proposal dealt with the construction of a new and larger Food Processing Plant. Notwithstanding a few concerns, NQCA supported this component due to the plant’s historical presence and the potential to protect 100 local jobs. The other two components were residential: a subdivision of nine single family lots and the second subdivision for 33 townhomes. We supported the single family subdivision, but did not support the townhome component since the density requested was 180 to 200% over what is indicated in our Local Area Plan and significant height variances were sought by the applicant. We urged Council to reduce the density to 26 townhomes and height variances. We urged Council to acquire a right-of-way along Douglas and Dieppe for bicycle lanes and seek an appropriate “Community Amenity Contribution”. In addition, we supported area residents’ request for a sidewalk to Quadra. Unfortunately, Council did not listen to any of our requests. Density remained the same, right of way for future bicycle lanes was not acquired and Dieppe/Caen residents did not get a sidewalk to Quadra. In our Council presentations we described the “Amenity Contributions” received by the community over the past 30 years and gave a number of examples where amenity contributions had been much higher. Nevertheless, we were completely ignored. Only one councillor, Councillor Derman, supported our request and recommended the proposal be sent back for reconsideration. In our view, Council relied on a flawed, developer slanted report from Planning to approve this development.



#14 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 17 March 2017 - 09:10 AM

Unfortunately, Council did not listen to any of our requests.

 

 

Maybe council indeed listened, but then dismissed them.  It's odd wording to say they did not listen, just because the decision did not go their way.


  • Rob Randall likes this
<p><span style="font-size:12px;"><em><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">"I don’t need a middle person in my pizza slice transaction" <strong>- zoomer, April 17, 2018</strong></span></em></span>

#15 UDeMan

UDeMan
  • Member
  • 744 posts

Posted 17 March 2017 - 09:29 AM

I remember when that location processed poultry.  I believe it was called Fatts Poultry.  It stunk so bad, could barely walk past the place.


  • rjag likes this

#16 LeoVictoria

LeoVictoria
  • Member
  • 3,471 posts

Posted 17 March 2017 - 12:13 PM

Wait, what?  If you are building a house with only one carpenter would it not logically increase the pace towards completion to hire more carpenters?

 

It appears to me that your default position is that "regulations are bad" whereas my default position is that "regulations are there for a reason". In either case we can review the regulations but to get through the system as it exists right now it seems to me that, "more staff" is precisely what will be needed to speed up the process.

 

The article talks about how Victoria used to be the slowest municipality but they have made great strides in increasing processing speed.   Did they do it by just increasing staff?   

My point is, having seen how large bureaucracies operate, there are almost always significant efficiency gains to be had by changing the process and that at least should be the first thing to look at, rather than staffing up to grind through an overbearing process with manpower (and additional taxes to fund it).


  • rjag, jonny and lanforod like this

#17 rjag

rjag
  • Member
  • 6,363 posts
  • LocationSi vis pacem para bellum

Posted 17 March 2017 - 12:17 PM

yup ^ simply adding more people wont solve anything but drive up costs. You have to consider where the roadblocks are. Are they interfering community associations, is it the politicians or is it simply so many regulations and red tape that stuff just bogs down. There is zero reason why 2 identical applications in 2 different municipalities should not conclude in a similar period of time.



#18 nagel

nagel
  • Member
  • 5,751 posts

Posted 17 March 2017 - 01:35 PM

yup ^ simply adding more people wont solve anything but drive up costs. You have to consider where the roadblocks are. Are they interfering community associations, is it the politicians or is it simply so many regulations and red tape that stuff just bogs down. There is zero reason why 2 identical applications in 2 different municipalities should not conclude in a similar period of time.

Except these two municipalities seemingly have completely different goals so it does make sense it could take longer in Saanich.



#19 tedward

tedward
  • Member
  • 1,974 posts
  • LocationJames Bay

Posted 17 March 2017 - 02:03 PM

^^ Fair enough, I never said more staff was the only answer but I don't see that staff=bureaucracy.


  • rjag likes this

Lake Side Buoy - LEGO Nut - History Nerd - James Bay resident


#20 vicstargazer

vicstargazer
  • Member
  • 13 posts

Posted 20 March 2017 - 09:23 AM

Discussion of the Development is on page 7

 

http://northquadra.c.../spring2016.pdf

 

Redevelopment of 4247, 4253 and 4255 Dieppe Road – current use as a Food Processing Plant: We were most disappointed with Council’s Oct. 6, 2015 decision to support this proposal which involved three distinct components. One part of the proposal dealt with the construction of a new and larger Food Processing Plant. Notwithstanding a few concerns, NQCA supported this component due to the plant’s historical presence and the potential to protect 100 local jobs. The other two components were residential: a subdivision of nine single family lots and the second subdivision for 33 townhomes. We supported the single family subdivision, but did not support the townhome component since the density requested was 180 to 200% over what is indicated in our Local Area Plan and significant height variances were sought by the applicant. We urged Council to reduce the density to 26 townhomes and height variances. We urged Council to acquire a right-of-way along Douglas and Dieppe for bicycle lanes and seek an appropriate “Community Amenity Contribution”. In addition, we supported area residents’ request for a sidewalk to Quadra. Unfortunately, Council did not listen to any of our requests. Density remained the same, right of way for future bicycle lanes was not acquired and Dieppe/Caen residents did not get a sidewalk to Quadra. In our Council presentations we described the “Amenity Contributions” received by the community over the past 30 years and gave a number of examples where amenity contributions had been much higher. Nevertheless, we were completely ignored. Only one councillor, Councillor Derman, supported our request and recommended the proposal be sent back for reconsideration. In our view, Council relied on a flawed, developer slanted report from Planning to approve this development.

Good on NQCA for really pressing for community amenities. It's disappointing that council didn't listen to their their concerns/requests. When a developer increases density for their own profit, why should the rest of Saanich bear the costs solely of the increase of use on roadways etc...? It seems pragmatic to encourage developers to help pay for the infrastructure that will be needed with the increase of density. This is not a new concept and it is good to see more community associations considering that for new developments. Asking for sidewalks, bikelanes and consideration of density is all part of the Public Interests and should be part of the development discussion. I think we are seeing a new era in Saanich where developers are now bullying residents and council to get what they want. Instead of going through the process the right way, they are using the public to help them pressure council into just saying yes. We have seen that with Ahlberg Farm's, Rainbow St Properties, EDPA.... It's a shame.



 



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users