From: Catherine Holt To: Deborah Jensen; Oak Bay Council ...

From: Catherine Holt To: Cc:

Deborah Jensen; Oak Bay Council; [email protected]; Hazel Braithwaite Krista Mitchell;

Subject: Re: 2072 Neil Date: May-14-18 8:34:54 PM

Thanks for the information Deborah,

I am sending you this letter to register my strong opposition to the mayor and council allowing any of many

variances required for this proposal.

I am extremely concerned by the tone of your reply which suggests that you feel this is a reasonable

proposal as it is on a legal lot.

I'm aware that lot 23 is a separate lot. I have checked three times with Oak Bay about the likelihood of it

being built on: once when I was thinking of buying my home at as the private backyard

was a major factor for me. The staff at that time said it was never going to happen as there is no access and

Oak Bay does not approve panhandle lots. The second time I checked was when 2072 Neil came up for sa le

and was advertised as having a "lane way lot". I was considering purchasing it to prevent anyone trying to

build on lot 23. The staff at that time said there is no lane way so there is no lane way lot and the city was

very unlikely to approve bui lding on a lot without roadway frontage or access . So I didn't buy it. The third

time I checked was when I heard from my neighbour on Henderson that the new owner was planning to

build on the lot. I had an e-mail exchange with Roy Thomassen at that time that I have attached at the end

of this note.

This lot may exist but that does not mean it is suitable for building a house.

As I outlined in the letter I send you, according to my reading of the Oak Bay by-laws there are the following

problems:

1. it is much smaller than the minimum lot size,

2. it doesn't have road access,

3. the front lot would have to be paved at 44% rather than 25% for a driveway,

4. the house would have to be built closer than the bylaws allow to adjacent properties on all four sides

5. the top floor would have to be build closer to the property lines than the bylaws allow.

6. All of these variances are required so that the house could be built to meet the minimum house size

requirements in the bylaws - otherwise it will be too sma ll.

7. In addition, the proposal is for a roof height of 27 feet and the bylaws ca ll for a maximum roof height

of 15 feet. That would allow for a house that would look into all of the adjoining neighbour's

backyards and destroy an extremely private area .

In addition, the construct ion requires the removal of a very large Garry Oak that dominates the area.

heard from the owner that he has had an arborist declare it partially diseased. I thought that tactic had

been discredited by now.

As there is not one aspect of this proposal that is consistent with existing by-laws, it certain ly doesn't

appear to be a viable proposal.

Roy said that all neighbours would be notified by the city before the decision was made about the

variances. You don't mention that in your reply.

Please tell me when and how all the adjoining property owners will be notified of this proposal and have an

opportunity to provide their views on the impact that this proposal will have on them .

Thank you for providing all relevant information in a timely manner to allow us to protect our privacy and

our property values.

Sincerely,

Catherine Holt

Following is the correspondence from Roy Thomassen:

Hello Catherine; Applications with detailed drawings would be required for a Development variance

permit. Once staff have reviewed the application it would be brought to the Advisory Planning

Commission for recommendations to Council. After APC the application goes to a committee of the

whole meeting, then notification to neighbors occurs to allow neighbors to have input when the

application is before Council for consideration. You could either attend Council meeting or write

letter of your concerns.

Access would be required and would likely be in the form of a right of way over the property.

Regards Roy

From: Catherine Holt

Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2017 1:27 PM

To: Roy Thomassen <[email protected]>

Cc: Ed Boogaars <[email protected]>; Rene Buser <[email protected]>; Deborah Jensen

<[email protected]>

Subject: Re: 2072 Neil Street

Thanks for the reply Roy. Could you tell me what the process would be to get a variance including

what involvement I would have as an adjacent property owner?

Also, is it possible to successfully build when there is no driveway or road access? That's the issue

that I can't get my head around.

Catherine

On Feb 14, 2017, at 10:31 AM, Roy Thomassen <[email protected]> wrote :

Hello Catherine; I recall having several conversations with regards to this property with

the legal lot behind. There are a number of challenges with development of the lot and

believe variances would require approva l from municipal Council. The fire department

would also have some issues that would need to be addressed . We have not received

any application to date so I cannot comment on what the owner may be bringing to the

neighbors.

Regards Roy

Roy Thomassen, RBO Director of Planning and Building The Corporation of the Distirct of Oak Bay 2167 Oak Bay Ave. Victoria, BC VBR 1 G2 250-598-2042 ext. 7424

From: Deborah Jensen <[email protected]>

Date: Monday, 14 May, 2018 5:44 PM

To: Catherine Holt

Cc: Krista Mitchell <[email protected]>

Subject: RE: 2072 Neil

Hello Catherine. Thank you for your email.

>

The District has received a development variance permit application for the property at 2072 Neil

Street. Variances requested include, for example, setbacks for the vacant lot, and paved surface for

the front lot (existing home). Staff are reviewing the file and are in the process of preparing a report

to go forward to Council. Council will then determine if they wish to approve the variances.

I wanted to also provide you with a bit more in formation. This vacant lot at the rea r of the existing I

home is a legal lot. As such, the owner is entitled to build on that lot. To do so wou ld require one of

two options. First, they could build on the lot with no variances - this would require a bui lding

permit application. Second, they make application for a development va riance permit- to vary

setbacks, etc in order to accommodate construction on, in this case, a smaller lot. The second

option is the one the applicant has taken .

While not yet confirmed, I anticipate this application may be reviewed by the Committee of the

Whole (Council) at their May 22nd meeting. The meeting agendas are usually posted the Friday

before the meeting, and you can view these online at www.oakbay.ca .

Sincerely,

Deborah

Deborah Jensen, MCIP, RPP Acting Director of Building and Planning I Approving Officer District of Oak Bay

2167 Oak Bay Avenue, Victoria, BC Phone (250) 598-2042 x7 433

From: Catherine Holt

Sent: May-14-18 5:20 PM

Cc: [email protected];

Subject: 2072 Neil

HI Deborah,

;-I own an adjoining property to 2072 Neil and am extremely concerned about the

impact of the single family house proposed for lot 23.

I have summarized the issues of concern in the attached letter that I circulated to the

affected neighbours.

I just received the plans from the owner of 2072 on May 6th . I had heard he had been

contacting other neighbours about this proposal last year but this is the first time I

heard anything directly from him.

As I mentioned in my letter I have contacted the staff at Oak Bay three times to ask if

there was a possibility that the lot would be built on.

And each time the answer was that it was extremely unlikely due to the access

problems and variances required but the it would be up to Mayor And council to

decide. Could you let me know what the status of the proposal is? I understand it has

already been reviewed by you and a committee.

Thanks, Catherine Holt

From: Martin, Steve

To: Oak Bay Council; [email protected]; Hazel Braithwaite Cc: Krista Mitchen; Deborah Jensen; Roy Thomassen; Subject: Proposed Development of 2072 Neil Street (Lot 23)

Date: May-16-18 6:22:46 PM

Dear elected representat ives, we wanted to communicate a number of serious concerns that we

have related to the proposed development at 2072 Neil St reet (Lot 23) that adjoins our property at

From our property, Lot 23 is by far the most visib le port ion of sight lines

from our deck, patio, back yard, and family room (for reference please see t he attached Summer

2017 photo/vista from our property with the large oak t ree in the background. Based on the

proposed redevelopment, all of the green space (Lot 23) would be developed including the loss a

magnificent oak tree. This green space and tree canopy would be replaced with a large home that

would complet ely eliminate the privacy we currently enjoy. This wou ld not on ly impact our quality

of life as resident s, it would have a significant impact on the value of our property. Similar to our

neighbours at 2928 Henderson Road, that also adjoin Lot 23, we were under the impression t hat it

was ill-suited to development which has been backed up by municipal officia ls over the years that

have expressed that it would be highly unlikely for Oak Bay to approve the development of this lot.

As residents of Oak Bay we are proud of our Community Plan and in particu lar t he Goals re lated to:

• Natural Environment - Protect and enhance the natural features that make the community environmentally and socially healthy and resilient, including the terrestrial and marine ecosystems, foreshore habitats, creeks, and tree canopy.

• Neighbourhoods- Sustain the characteristics of Oak Bay's neighbourhoods that contribute to a sense of place and attachment to the community.

• Built Environment- Conserve the community's architectural, streetscape and garden heritage while also embracing creative new design approaches that complement the community's character and reflect changing needs.

Broad Policies have been established to help operationalize the goals of the Community Plan. In th is

context, infi ll is specifically called out in the fo llowing cont ext:

• Consider increases in density while respecting the values that make Oak Bay an attractive and environmentally rich community. Consider infill development as a tool for allowing more density to fit within neighbourhoods while respecting and conserving neighbourhood character.

• Infi ll is defined in the Plan as:

o Infill makes use of existing infrastructure and already disturbed land, reduces development pressure on naturq/ areas, and can support increased walking, biking and transit use. In Oak Bay, infill has the added benefit of bringing more people closer to existing and planned mixed use and commercial centres, increasing the viability and vitality of these important activity hubs. Successful infill housing is carefully planned to minimize potential impacts on adjacent properties. Neighbourhood character, traffic safety, parking, trees/ landscape, overshadowing and property values are concerns that are often raised by existing residents.

The proposed development does not align with t hese goals and policies, and wou ld erode everyth ing

that we strive to protect as a community.

Also similar to the owners of the adjoining property on Henderson, we would like to register the

fol lowing specific concerns :

1. Neighborhood notification and impact assessment - will al l adjoin ing property owners and

other impacted properties be notified and consulted by municipal staff prior to their

assessment and development of recommendations (to Council) rega rding th is proposed

development ?

2. Lot 23 it is much smaller than the minimum lot size, without road access, and would require

it to be paved at 44% - substantially more than 25% for a driveway.

3. The house wou ld have to be built closer than the bylaws allow to adjacent properties on al l

four sides and the top floor would have to be build closer to the property lines than the

bylaws al low. Effectively t his would situate the house in a position where it wou ld directly

tower over our very private back yard. This wou ld have a dramatic and negative impact on

the quality of life and privacy we expect (and pay for through property taxes) in Oak Bay.

4. Numerous int rusive va dances are required so that the house could be bui lt to meet the

min imum house size requ irements in t he bylaws.

5. The proposal is for a roof height t hat significantly exceeds the bylaws maximum roof height

limit . The proposed roof height would allow for a house that would tower over, not only our

property, but al l of the adjoining properties, effectively destroying an att ractive natural

environment that provides privacy for all neighbouring residents.

6. The proposed development would require the removal of a very large and healthy Garry Oak

that dominates the area's skyline (see attached picture).

In terms of item 5 above, I would also like to highl ight that the Community Survey, which helped to

inform the Community Plan identified a list of the Least Acceptable Options to Survey Respondent s.

Because of its importance to the community, the survey explored housing options in more detail than

other topics. Housing options received the largest disagreement percentages, indicating those who

disagreed or strongly disagreed with each option.

• 62% Allow building height increases for new homes in single family residential areas

We recogn ize the delicate balance between change and the desire to preserve the features that

define Oak Bay. As elected officials that represent our very specia l and unique municipality, I trust

that you wi ll see that this proposed development ·does not meet this test of balance, nor does it

align with Community Plan and t he va lues we all share as residents of Oak Bay.

Sincerely,

Steve Martin & Drew Thomson

This email was sent to you by KeMG. (http://jnfo.kpmg.ca). To sign up to receive event invitations and other communications from us (we have some informative publications that may be of interest to you). or to stop receiving electronic messages sent by KPMG, visit the KPMG Online Subscription Centre

(http://subscribe.kpmg.ca).

At KPMG we are passionate about earning your trust and building a long-term relationship through service excellence. This extends to our communications with you .

Our lawyers have recommended that we provide certain disclaimer language with our messages. Rather than including them here, we're drawing your attention to the following links where the full legal wording appears.

• Disclaimer concerning confidential and privileged information/unintended recipient (http·l/disc1aimer,kpmg.ca).

• Disclaimer concerning tax advice (http://taxdisclaimer.kpmg.ca).

If you are unable to access the links above, please cut and paste the URL that follows the link into your browser.

From: To: Subject: Date:

From: ic [mail to

Deborah Jensen Krista Mitchell FW: Building Proposal 2072 Neil St. May-16-18 12: 59: 07 PM

Sent: May-16-18 7:26 AM

To: Deborah Jensen <[email protected]>

Subject: Build ing Proposa l 2072 Neil St.

Dear Ms. Jensen,

As a contiguous, neighbouring property, we wish to express our strongest opposition to this proposal.

I understand we will have the opportunity to express our specific, and numerous concerns, once council has notified us of their decision. however, we would like to identify ourselves as opponents at this time.

Sincerely, Ingrid & Mark Ciarfella