Jump to content

      












Photo

Saanich EDPA


  • Please log in to reply
259 replies to this topic

#21 Benn

Benn
  • Member
  • 74 posts

Posted 17 March 2017 - 08:16 PM

You don't need a development permit for a garden shed. Is that your house? If it is, and you have questions, go ask Saanich. The article I posted is about the implications of removing the bylaw, which are pretty serious. Do you have any comments about that?

#22 dasmo

dasmo
  • Member
  • 5,180 posts

Posted 17 March 2017 - 09:15 PM

Depends. Is the shed close to a riparian area? Would the construction of it be at the wrong time and fill a frog spawning area with sediment whipping out the eggs and killing off a generation?
Purpose of the DP in these cases is to have it reviewed. To asist whatever development that does happen in these area to follow best practices such that irreparable damage to the protected ecosystem can be avoided. Makes sense to me. We have to protect what's left....
  • Benn likes this

#23 Bingo

Bingo
  • Member
  • 16,666 posts

Posted 17 March 2017 - 10:41 PM

which house would you buy on this street?

market suggests the ones on the south side (which are all in the EDPA) are more desirable. they all back onto a park, hence why the EDPA designation is triggered. The EDPA generally covers desirable environmental features - natural vegetation, water, etc. It's not like they picked properties at random

Any house on that street has access to the park from the trail at the end of the street.

I would not choose any house backing onto that park as the back yard will be in the shade, part of the day and the forest provides cover for those wanting to break into your house.



#24 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 18 March 2017 - 06:28 AM

You don't need a permit for a shed under like 112 square feet.

 

Right, so my 10' x 12' aluminum siding shed I need a permit for.

 

metal-sheds.jpg


<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>

#25 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 18 March 2017 - 06:32 AM

Depends. Is the shed close to a riparian area? Would the construction of it be at the wrong time and fill a frog spawning area with sediment whipping out the eggs and killing off a generation?
Purpose of the DP in these cases is to have it reviewed. To asist whatever development that does happen in these area to follow best practices such that irreparable damage to the protected ecosystem can be avoided. Makes sense to me. We have to protect what's left....

 

That vast majority of jurisdictions in this country (including most of our local municipalities) do not have an EDPA type thing.  Can you point to all the lost stuff that we should have protected by limiting use of personal property?

 

Look, in general, I do not mind the protections.  I'm more concerned the way that Saanich just laid a blanket over thousands of properties and then left it to owners to scramble out from it.

 

But look, also.  Something like 93% of the land in British Columbia is crown land.  Mostly pristine, natural.  If I kill three frogs in my back yard, I could not care less, in the grand scheme of things.


  • 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>

#26 rjag

rjag
  • Member
  • 5,736 posts
  • LocationSi vis pacem para bellum

Posted 18 March 2017 - 07:25 AM

Never mind a shed how about a deck or a patio?

#27 Benn

Benn
  • Member
  • 74 posts

Posted 18 March 2017 - 08:50 AM

Map 13,14,15 in Langford OCP http://www.langford....y-plan-1200.pdf

'EDPA Type thing' Langford has it too. So do most municipalities. Because it is in the public interest to avoid people steamrolling nature.

In terms of what has been lost, those stats are easy to find. 95% of what was here before colonial settlement.

The exemption size limit is 10m2, so big enough for your shed. There is still the expectation that you don't wreck anything native that is there though.

Do you really think people should be allowed to destroy nature on their land?

#28 Benn

Benn
  • Member
  • 74 posts

Posted 18 March 2017 - 08:51 AM

Langford even used most of the same maps as Saanich to designate those areas.

#29 Benn

Benn
  • Member
  • 74 posts

Posted 18 March 2017 - 08:52 AM

http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/sei/van_gulf/

#30 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 18 March 2017 - 09:02 AM

Map 13,14,15 in Langford OCP http://www.langford....y-plan-1200.pdf

'EDPA Type thing' Langford has it too. So do most municipalities. Because it is in the public interest to avoid people steamrolling nature.

In terms of what has been lost, those stats are easy to find. 95% of what was here before colonial settlement.

The exemption size limit is 10m2, so big enough for your shed. There is still the expectation that you don't wreck anything native that is there though.

Do you really think people should be allowed to destroy nature on their land?

 

My shed is 120 sq. ft.  Your exemption is 107.63.  So my shed needs a special permit, a botanist, a biologist and native blessings.

 

Yes, I think people should be allowed to do what they want with the land they own fee simple.  As long as it does not have a significant negative effect on others.  Believe it or not, most people will choose to care for the environment, on their own.

 

I'll need you to show me how 95% of what was here is now gone.  And after I see that, I'l show you how 95% of what us European settlers brought has made this a better place to live than in 1780.


<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>

#31 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 18 March 2017 - 09:05 AM

I agree with this letter-writer:

 

Very few Saanich residents choose to degrade our environment. To the contrary, many have demonstrated long-standing personal commitments to protecting our ecosystems. As she correctly pointed out, the environment is why we choose to live in Saanich rather than elsewhere.

 

- See more at: http://www.timescolo...h.WeFTl7xj.dpuf

 

At the Sept. 28 Saanich council meeting, a professional biologist pointed out that 99.2 per cent of the subject properties do not contain sensitive ecosystems (as defined by provincial standards), and some have not had such ecosystems for as long as 50 years. What remains of some sensitive areas, primarily Garry oaks, are already protected by other sensible bylaws.

 

 

Meanwhile, some other property owners have quietly had their land removed from the EDPA. What is the difference between the two groups? Does it have something to do with who challenges the validity of the bylaw and who doesn’t?

 

One of the reasons some councillors cited for not exempting the two properties in question was that they didn’t want to set a precedent. But apparently, the precedent has already been set, which brings us back to the aforementioned question.

 

The author again correctly states: “Losing a small amount of a rare habitat can have enormous impacts on ecosystem health across the region.” Why then, did Saanich council approve the subdivision and inevitable decimation of one of the last Garry oak ecosystems left within urban Saanich?

 

I am referring to the properties on Stan Wright Lane.

 

Note that a Saanich councilor was involved with Stan Wright lane, she lives there:

 

http://www.saanich.c...ki-sanders.html


<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>

#32 Benn

Benn
  • Member
  • 74 posts

Posted 18 March 2017 - 09:10 AM

History shows, most people wont preserve nature. That is the whole point. It's not about keeping their lawn mowed, which sure, people will do on their own.

#33 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 18 March 2017 - 09:12 AM

History shows, most people wont preserve nature. 

 

Of course civilization marches forward, that's progress.  But people will preserve nature when it pleases them.

 

If you want to go back to dirt roads, horses and carriages, and the 1850 population, just say that.  We had to pave over lots of nature to get to where we are today.  But with over 300 parks in Victoria, I think we have preserved enough without reaching onto personal property.


<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>

#34 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 18 March 2017 - 09:14 AM

Does this look like we've been running roughshod over nature around here?

 

screenshot-www.google.ca-2017-03-18-10-13-51.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>

#35 Benn

Benn
  • Member
  • 74 posts

Posted 18 March 2017 - 09:18 AM

Stan wright lane was never in the EDPA. The 99.2% quote is actually a misquote - the original reference suggests the opposite of the point they are trying to make. And regarding your shed, 10m2 is the threshold in the building bylaw. So you would technically need a permit to build it anywhere in Saanich.

#36 Benn

Benn
  • Member
  • 74 posts

Posted 18 March 2017 - 09:21 AM

If you don't agree philosophically that's fine. Pretty much every argument you've made is BS though.
  • Matt R. likes this

#37 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 18 March 2017 - 09:22 AM

If you don't agree philosophically that's fine. Pretty much every argument you've made is BS though.

 

That's the best you can do, call my valid points "BS"?  

 

Well you mostly lost me when you said Europeans had wiped out 95% of nature, or something to that effect.

 

And the Stan Wright was a reference to how the EPDA had been in the works for 10 or 15 years, but it had not held up that subdivision.  The one a Saanich councillor was directly involved in.


<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>

#38 dasmo

dasmo
  • Member
  • 5,180 posts

Posted 18 March 2017 - 09:23 AM

Just one? Langford lake....
  • Benn likes this

#39 vicstargazer

vicstargazer
  • Member
  • 13 posts

Posted 18 March 2017 - 10:34 AM

^ I don't know, I can not see the imaginary EDPA lines.

 

Of course the market says they are more desirable, they back onto a park.

 

But around the corner at 941 Woodhall, that's the gold mine property!  It backs onto the same park but he can do what he wants in his back yard, without Saanich in his face.

 

 

 

Now, surprise, surprise, look who owns that house, Jason and Alina Fisher, who happen to be two environment professionals:

 

https://www.linkedin...ny-beta/166687/

 

 

 

 

http://www.jasontfis...a/about-me.html

Am I the only one that finds this off-side? You just published someone's address, names and place of work on a public forum in a discussion they seemingly are not even participating in. What point are you even trying to make?


  • nagel likes this

#40 Coreyburger

Coreyburger
  • Member
  • 2,864 posts

Posted 18 March 2017 - 11:10 AM

Does this look like we've been running roughshod over nature around here?

 

 

 

Yes. Most of the built-up area is on Garry Oak Grassland eco-system, which is only on the east coast of Vancouver Island and is amongst the most endangered ecosystems in Canada.

 

Most of the non-built up area, especially out the JdF way, is Coastal Douglas Fir. And most it, including the watershed, was extensively logged in the past one hundred years or so.

 

Within that orthophoto there pretty much isn't anywhere that hasn't been extensively disturbed by humans at some point.


  • vicstargazer and Benn like this

You're not quite at the end of this discussion topic!

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