Jump to content

      












Photo

Saanich EDPA


  • Please log in to reply
259 replies to this topic

#41 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 18 March 2017 - 11:15 AM

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?

 

Well, all from public records and information they chose to post online.   The point I'm trying to make is that two professionals in the environment field somehow got their home, of all those one that side of their street, excluded from the sensitive area.

 

So I'm suggesting those that are "in the know", have connections, or had the expertise to be able to show that their property should be excluded, did that somehow.

 

I mean, how else do you interpret this?  All the other properties touch the park, just like 941, but 941 has the yellow line drawn on the same lone as the property line.  Nobody else on that street had that kind of luck.

 

 

 

post-5-0-19694000-1489795541.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>

#42 Benn

Benn
  • Member
  • 74 posts

Posted 18 March 2017 - 01:16 PM

Straight up, you are making yourself look foolish now.

#43 vicstargazer

vicstargazer
  • Member
  • 13 posts

Posted 18 March 2017 - 02:56 PM

Well, all from public records and information they chose to post online.   The point I'm trying to make is that two professionals in the environment field somehow got their home, of all those one that side of their street, excluded from the sensitive area.

 

So I'm suggesting those that are "in the know", have connections, or had the expertise to be able to show that their property should be excluded, did that somehow.

 

I mean, how else do you interpret this?  All the other properties touch the park, just like 941, but 941 has the yellow line drawn on the same lone as the property line.  Nobody else on that street had that kind of luck.

 

 

 

 


How do you know that the current property owners owned the property before the EDPA came into effect? Do you know what their position on the EDPA is or that they don't want to be in it at all? I've met a few ecologists that are happy to be in the EDPA, what have you seen or what have they told you would make you assume they feel differently? Are you planning on posting the names, addresses and professions of other people in Saanich whose properties are not in the EDPA that you feel should be? Why would you be targeting these people?

It all just seems a little....creepy and a tad crazy.



#44 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 18 March 2017 - 03:09 PM

How do you know that the current property owners owned the property before the EDPA came into effect? 

 

I don't.  But I'm guessing you know more than perhaps you are letting on here to start with.  

 

Happy to have you in the conversation.  Perhaps you can help fill in the gaps?

 

I'm not sure Canada 411 and LinkedIn is all that creepy.  I'm not targeting anybody.  I'm at the very least showing a seriously coincidental anomaly on the map, if there is nothing to my suggestions.

 

I'm also not saying that the Woodhall property should not have been exempted (or the border moved, as the case were).  I'm just saying it's too bad you need to have an environmental science degree to get Saanich to listen. 


<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>

#45 rjag

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

Posted 18 March 2017 - 03:28 PM

Staying on topic, perhaps someone can post the areas of concern about the EDPA, i.e. what a homeowner can or cant do depending on whether they are inside or not, and who gets to make the decision etc?



#46 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 18 March 2017 - 03:31 PM

Staying on topic, perhaps someone can post the areas of concern about the EDPA, i.e. what a homeowner can or cant do depending on whether they are inside or not, and who gets to make the decision etc?

 

Here is what I can't do until sorted out:

 

 

If I don’t have an exemption, what activities need a permit?
  • Removal, alteration, disruption or destruction of vegetation.
  • Removal, deposit or disturbance of soils.
  • Construction or erection of buildings and structures.
  • Creation of non-structural impervious or semi-impervious surfaces.
  • Construction of roads, trails, docks, wharves and bridges.
  • Provision and maintenance of sewer and water services.
  • Subdivision of land where there is the potential to create conditions for impacts to an ESA.

 

Can residents have gardens in the EDPA? Most EDPA areas are not suitable for gardening because of thin soils or shading. However, residents can continue to maintain gardens, landscaping, and agriculture. New gardens that use the principles of Naturescape (gardening with habitat in mind) are exempt. New gardens should not be made if native vegetation would be removed in ecosystems or soils imported.

 

http://www.saanich.c...PA FAQ 2015.pdf

 

So I think since you can not even alter native plants, your chances of building a deck over them is next to zero.  And you will see on the mapping system, much of the time the line is right up to the back wall of your house.  New decks or expansion of decks, adding back yard hot tubs etc. will be problematic.


  • rjag 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>

#47 vicstargazer

vicstargazer
  • Member
  • 13 posts

Posted 18 March 2017 - 04:02 PM

I don't.  But I'm guessing you know more than perhaps you are letting on here to start with.  

 

Happy to have you in the conversation.  Perhaps you can help fill in the gaps?

 

I'm not sure Canada 411 and LinkedIn is all that creepy.  I'm not targeting anybody.  I'm at the very least showing a seriously coincidental anomaly on the map, if there is nothing to my suggestions.

 

I'm also not saying that the Woodhall property should not have been exempted (or the border moved, as the case were).  I'm just saying it's too bad you need to have an environmental science degree to get Saanich to listen. 

It seems pretty creepy that you would go to the lengths of looking up someone's address from a map, looking up who owned the home and then posting their profession with their linkedin profile onto a public internet forum. I don't know much about that address but I would expect that before you started linking them to a conspiracy theory you have made up, you would have maybe looked into all that first. Again, you also made another statement insinuating that because they have a science degree Saanich "listened" to them? You have linked people's address's, professions and names online and have suggested that somehow they are "in the know". That doesn't sound crazy to you?

As for needing a science degree to have Saanich listen to them... I was at a Public Town Hall Meeting where a Environmental Law Professor from Uvic and an Environmental Science Professor stood up and spoke in support of the EDPA and they live within it. Where are you getting the assumption that most people with science backgrounds don't support it? It would seem that Saanich council is only listening to one science professional with a RPBio designation and ignoring everyone else who has submitted reports with science degrees and expertise, who support the EDPA. You might find this report interesting. There appears there is support for the EDPA and for many who don't support it, it may be because of their low level of understanding from it. http://www.saanich.c... 2016 FINAL.pdf



#48 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 18 March 2017 - 04:09 PM

It seems pretty creepy that you would go to the lengths of looking up someone's address from a map, looking up who owned the home and then posting their profession with their linkedin profile onto a public internet forum. I don't know much about that address but I would expect that before you started linking them to a conspiracy theory you have made up, you would have maybe looked into all that first. Again, you also made another statement insinuating that because they have a science degree Saanich "listened" to them? You have linked people's address's, professions and names online and have suggested that somehow they are "in the know". That doesn't sound crazy to you?

As for needing a science degree to have Saanich listen to them... I was at a Public Town Hall Meeting where a Environmental Law Professor from Uvic and an Environmental Science Professor stood up and spoke in support of the EDPA and they live within it. Where are you getting the assumption that most people with science backgrounds don't support it? 

 

Let me cover that last one first.  I never said that most people with science backgrounds do - or do not - support it.  I am suggesting having a science background might make it easier to have Saanich move the boundary, or you might need a science guy to attend your council hearing to sway the vote (as the Rainbow and Gordon Head Rd. owners had to do).

 

Nothing about what I did seems all that crazy to me.  What seems crazy to me, is that curious bend in the EDPA boundary at the Woodhall home.  And I've looked pretty closely all over the Saanich GIS, and I do not see another kink like that anywhere else.  939's entire backyard save for a tiny snippet is in the EDPA, but then the protected zone marker runs right down his property line, and manages to exclude almost all of 941's back yard.  I can play a game of soccer along the line dividing those two yards (if there is no fence) and as I dribble towards the park with the ball in a straight line for many yards, I'm right foot in EPDA and left foot out of EPDA as I run along. 

 

 

 

post-5-0-19694000-1489795541.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>

#49 rjag

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

Posted 18 March 2017 - 05:47 PM

from this angle there should be zero reason for the change from 1 address to another

 

https://www.google.c...!4d-123.3757431



#50 dasmo

dasmo
  • Member
  • 5,180 posts

Posted 18 March 2017 - 06:19 PM

Follow the money.... I mean water....
  • rjag likes this

#51 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 18 March 2017 - 07:28 PM

from this angle there should be zero reason for the change from 1 address to another

 

https://www.google.c...!4d-123.3757431

 

screenshot-www.google.ca-2017-03-18-20-27-41.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>

#52 Benn

Benn
  • Member
  • 74 posts

Posted 18 March 2017 - 07:56 PM

They (Canada / BC) made the maps around 2000. The photos they had then don't compare to what is available in Google maps. Then 12 years to get the maps incorporated into public policy. The length of lines between points in the mapping gives you an idea of how far out they were zoomed when they were looking at them.

None of this really matters though because the whole thing is getting suspended. For the same BS reasons VHF has trotted out.

Which was the whole point of the what I posted originally. It gets suspended, and we go back to the 60's in terms of environmental protection in Saanich. Because a bunch of self interested people don't care for the environment when it gets in the way of $$$$$.
  • vicstargazer likes this

#53 vicstargazer

vicstargazer
  • Member
  • 13 posts

Posted 18 March 2017 - 08:07 PM

 

 

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.

Stan Wright wouldn't have been in the EDPA. Just because there was protected oak trees on the property, doesn't mean the oak trees couldn't be removed if it happened to be in the foot print of development. Which is why the EDPA is important for areas where sensitive ecosystems rely on the oak trees, like habitat corridors. The EDPA gives the environment an opportunity to be considered at the time of development discussion. Stan Wright Lane was a large piece of property in a urban setting. And the councillors' family sold the family property to a developer who developed that large lot into what it was. Which again points to why it's important to have some set of guidelines about what the community interest in the little SEI's Saanich has left. 


  • VicHockeyFan likes this

#54 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 19 March 2017 - 06:48 AM

None of this really matters though because the whole thing is getting suspended. For the same BS reasons VHF has trotted out.

 

 

Well, maybe it's a good idea to suspend it until 2016 maps are used, rather than 2000 maps.  Then re-start.  I just did the first street segment for Saanich, the 900-ish block Woodhall.  No charge, either.

 

http://www.timescolo...ylaw-1.12211350

 

Saanich poised to suspend controversial eco-bylaw

 


<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>

#55 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 19 March 2017 - 06:50 AM

Because a bunch of self interested people don't care for the environment when it gets in the way of $$$$$.

 

Money always trumps the environment, that's not new.  See:  BC shipping coal, but not burning it here*.  See:  Most people prefer SUVs/trucks to small cars when they can afford it.

 

*Raw coal exports!  NDP should demand value added, more coal-fired electricity plants and more steel-making.


<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>

#56 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 19 March 2017 - 06:52 AM

Stan Wright wouldn't have been in the EDPA. Just because there was protected oak trees on the property, doesn't mean the oak trees couldn't be removed if it happened to be in the foot print of development. Which is why the EDPA is important for areas where sensitive ecosystems rely on the oak trees, like habitat corridors. The EDPA gives the environment an opportunity to be considered at the time of development discussion. Stan Wright Lane was a large piece of property in a urban setting. And the councillors' family sold the family property to a developer who developed that large lot into what it was. Which again points to why it's important to have some set of guidelines about what the community interest in the little SEI's Saanich has left. 

 

I agree with all this.  I disagree with the bungled process.  Or in Benn's words, the "BS process".   :wave:


<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>

#57 Benn

Benn
  • Member
  • 74 posts

Posted 19 March 2017 - 06:22 PM

What bungled process? The only bungling has been from council. Why would you consider exemptions from a DEVELOPMENT PERMIT bylaw for people who aren't looking for a DEVELOPMENT PERMIT?

#58 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 19 March 2017 - 06:26 PM

What bungled process? The only bungling has been from council. Why would you consider exemptions from a DEVELOPMENT PERMIT bylaw for people who aren't looking for a DEVELOPMENT PERMIT?

 

Why would you place a blanket designation on 2,200 homes using map technology from 2000?  That's arrogant. Bordering on incompetent.  Reminds me of Saanich in the 60's quite frankly, it's so poor.

 

(I grew up in Saanich in the 60's, in case anyone wonders)

 

Hey, I get it Benn, you are very passionate about the environment, even to the point of your concern extending into private property.

 

BTW, honey bees are an invasive species.  Just sayin'!


<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>

#59 Benn

Benn
  • Member
  • 74 posts

Posted 19 March 2017 - 06:31 PM

Because that's exactly what the maps were made for?

#60 vicstargazer

vicstargazer
  • Member
  • 13 posts

Posted 19 March 2017 - 08:16 PM

Why would you place a blanket designation on 2,200 homes using map technology from 2000?  That's arrogant. Bordering on incompetent.  Reminds me of Saanich in the 60's quite frankly, it's so poor.

 

The only problem with the designation is that it should have gone over onto ALL properties within Saanich. Every property in Saanich applying for a development permit would need to do an environmental assessment. Which is what some municipalities, like Whistler, have done. That would have been the most fair way too apply it. You are making it sound like Saanich didn't spend years of consulting the public, consulting with various committees, and following the correct process and procedures to roll out the bylaw when in fact, they did. They even have Saanich residents blessing in the principle of the bylaw because it's in the OCP for Saanich. If you don't appreciate how Saanich did it, how would you have done it differently? It's easy to be critical and complain about the process from the sidelines, but to actually be involved and offer some decent ideas for change is a more productive way to spend your time. This bylaw is in loads of other municipalities in BC. Have you looked into that at all? To not have a bylaw aimed at dealing with protecting the environment in this era of increased development at the expense of environment, it would be irresponsible and arrogant of the municipality. Ultimately, we have a responsibility to future generations to leave something behind for them. 



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