Public Hearing

Good evening, neighbors, and welcome to a public hearing, and that's just going to be before a regular scheduled council meeting.

Um, but before we begin, I wanted to start with a territorial acknowledgement that we recognize the Lekwungen speaking people known today as the Esquimalt or Kosapsum Nation and the Songhees Nation, and that their historic connections to these lands continue to this day.

Uh the proposed bylaw has been introduced and has received second reading of council.

Before the bylaw can legally be adopted by council, it must be receive two more readings.

Your input via the public hearing process is most important to council in making a decision.

At this public hearing, any person who believes that their interest in in property is affected by the proposed bylaw amendment shall be given an opportunity to be heard.

However, it is important that all who speak in this meeting restrict the remarks to matters contained within uh the bylaws as they affect the OCP amendment.

Um it's my responsibility to ensure that all remarks are so restricted.

This evening we will hear uh presentation from staff, and then we will hear from uh you during the comments uh from the public portion of the agenda.

A reminder that council is a safe, respectful, and inclusive space.

All members of the audience are asked to refrain from clapping or cheering or openly expressing your opinion opposing opinions when others are speaking or when they're done speaking.

When it's your turn to talk, do not speak disrespectfully about anybody else, including counsel or staff.

Uh please don't use rude or offensive language or make statements or allegations that call into question the character of anyone else or speak or act in an aggressive bullying or harassing way.

Council wants to hear all of your views for those that are participating in this meeting in an open and impartial form.

If you wish to provide comments at the podium, please begin by indicating your name and just your street name.

You don't have to give your street number address.

If you wish to provide comments virtually, the chat feature will be open for you to submit your comments.

Again, we asked that you provide your name and street name to begin your comments.

Uh your comments uh will be read out loud at the appropriate time by the web member of the webcast team.

Members of council may, if they wish, ask questions of you.

Uh however, the main function of council, including myself this evening, is to listen to the views of the public.

It is not the function of council at this public hearing to debate the merits of the proposed bylaw amendment with individual citizens.

This meeting will be recorded by participating in the webcast.

You are consenting to being recorded, and the recording will be available on the town's website for future access.

After this public hearing has concluded, the council may, without further notice, give whatever uh effect council believes proper to the representation made at the public hearing.

The public is reminded that after the public hearing, council cannot hear any new information until a decision about the application is made.

So there's a portion here in the public hearing that if you're here to speak on the official community uh plan number 811 2011 amendment bylaw, this is the place to do it.

Um so having stated that I'd like to um seek approval of the agenda for just the public hearing, and that includes the late items that were uh amended.

And I think that was an amendment that we see for um on our blue sheet.

Uh can I get a so moved moved by councillor Matson, seconded by uh counselor Brown.

Uh any uh amendments or advice then I'll call it all those in favor of the agenda for the public hearing.

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed, motion carries.

Um and I think I've already read the statement for the public hearing a little bit out of order.

Elna, you can take it under my paycheck.

Um I think that brings us down to uh staff report and uh Leah.

Good evening, um, Mayor Tobias and members of council.

Before I get into the staff presentation on um the item before you, which is a public hearing on the official community plan bylaw amendment number 1156.

I need to read out our notice of advertising.

So bylaw official community plan amendment bylaw number 1156, 2025.

The notice for this bylaw was advertised um uh on the notice board at the municipal office on the 25th day of November 2025.

The notice that advertised this public hearing was posted on the town's website at the municipal office on November 25th, 2025.

And the notice was also published on the town's social media platforms on November 26, 2025.

So we have complied with our public notification bylaw for this public hearing.

So I have a brief uh presentation tonight on this on this bylaw.

Um, council has seen it before.

This is the second public hearing.

After the last uh public hearing on November 4th, um, the bylaw was sent back to staff to make some changes to the bylaw, and now it's being brought forward for a second public hearing.

Next slide, please.

So on November 4th, council passed a motion to refer the official community plan amendment bylaw number 1156 back to staff to address a couple of things.

So the first item is the concerns related to certain parcels being added to the new small-scale multi-unit housing land use designation that are not currently zoned for small-scale multi-unit housing in the zoning bylaw.

And where small-scale multi-unit housing is not permitted in accordance with the zoning bylaw, the current land use designations remain as a residential or large lot residential in the official community plan.

And I'd just like to remind uh council and the public that these proposed bylaw amendments would ensure that our current zoning bylaw, which was amended in um by June 30th of 2024 to align with the provincial bill 44, which is a small-scale multi unit housing, as well as Bill 47, which is the transit-oriented areas bill.

The town was among all municipalities in the province, had to update our bylaws to comply with the legislation.

And so we have done that, and now it's bringing our zoning bylaw, our OCP in line with our zoning bylaw because both bylaws need to be consistent.

Next slide, please.

So the map on the left, which is the previous map, so as you can see, um, you see a lot of yellow in the previous map.

And so these lands that are yellow were originally all within the small scale multi unit housing land use designation as originally proposed.

But in response to council's motion, some of the parcels were proposed to have this new designation just because they're surrounded by lands within small scale within the proposed small scale multi unit housing land use designation, but not necessarily zoned for that for that.

But anyways, we um we updated the OCP land use designation map to exclude the parcels that do not have the small-scale multi-unit housing zoning.

And so on the on the right, on the map on the right side, which is the updated map as per council's motion on November 4th, identifies those parcels that went back to their original land use designation in the 2011 OCP.

And that is, and as you can see, there's there's a few a few parcels there.

So lands up in the Chilco area on Lund Road.

You can see that are yellow.

not have the small scale multi unit zoning partially become um for a couple of reasons but i believe in this case they don't they they don't have um they're not hooked up to sewer and water and um and then on the north side of the um the highway um around the hospital uh there's some some parcels there that are um um that are not zoned for small scale multi housing so they're they have been they're have been left in the residential land use designation um and next slide please so the recommendation uh for council's consideration is to is to receive um this in this um presentation for information thank you and i'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, Leah.

Can we start with a motion to receive the uh report?

Uh Councillor brown and Councillor Lemmon.

Um all those in favor is a receipt of the report, and then we'll get into all those in favor.

Any opposed?

Uh acknowledge you, uh Councilor Rogers, nobody opposed, received the report.

Uh now let's move to questions and let's start with Councillor Matson, please.

Mr.

And this is I know the answer, but just to confirm.

The only so we've already approved everything in the current uh OCP that we're modifying, except for these changes that you noted today.

So everything's already a done deal, and we're just modifying by adding those few houses, correct?

Um three great question, Councilor Matson.

Uh no, um the bylaw hasn't the there's only a buy, sorry, the OCP hasn't been updated yet so um be we um after the November 4th public hearing the bylaw was sent back to staff um to make those changes and um so we did that uh and um between first and second reading of the bylaw november 18th and tonight's public hearing there are a couple of like parcels that i identified in the staff report um that um we were were missed and so we just we made that change but we identified those in the staff report and those are now caught in this bylaw that um is in front of you this evening for consideration of third and fourth reading after the public hearing and my only other comment is I I know it's for staff this has been a really painful process as well as for members of council and i just wanted to publicly thank staff for all their all their work on the OCP up to date and uh I look forward to many more interesting discussions on the uh the corridor in the future so thank you staff any other questions for Leah uh I I've got a couple if no one else does one is uh Leah can uh first of all i uh just confirm or deny that these um changes are expected from the province.

This is nothing that uh the council or staff have come up with.

We've complied with provincial direct.

Correct.

And what is the date the province expects us to have the OCP changes amended?

What the legends legislation states is that these the OCP needs to be updated to align with our five and 20 year housing needs report by December 31st of well, the end of this month actually.

And the changes that we have done to align the OCP with the 5 and 20 year is to just update those parcels to the small-scale multi-housing land use designation to match our zoning by law.

That was updated on June by June 30th, 2024.

And a follow-on question.

Thank you.

So our zoning now is compliant with legislation, but the OCP itself is not.

Correct.

And uh so the we need to be compliant with our housing needs report.

The housing needs report was based on a formula that the province provided, correct?

Correct, the heart model.

Thank you.

Uh and uh just remind me because it's relevant, we also received a letter from the minister uh of our housing targets this week.

Roughly how are we doing?

Um I believe we've exceeded um our housing target for the first year by 234%.

234%.

Approximately, yeah.

Uh any other questions?

Just to follow up on your last question.

Um so my understanding is if we didn't have another new ho we haven't added any more housing between now and the end of that that five year period, we would already have met the targets.

Um the our target is like five hundred and something units.

And um yes, um, with the number of um units currently under construction that will come to completion um before the five years will meet our current housing target.

Thank you.

And Leah, just to follow on from that, there's some places though we're not meeting it right with affordable housing.

What are those other criteria?

That's correct.

Um that isn't part of the legislation.

So those um guiding targets, I would call them, um, that accompanied our target order around providing non market um affordable and supportive housing.

So the province has given us some guide guidance in terms of um the the demand for that type of housing in our community, but those numbers are not part of our target order or part of the legislation.

Sure.

One last question.

Do you know how View Roll is doing compared to other municipalities in terms of meeting provincial targets?

Through the mayor, I haven't been paying a close attention to that just because we've been so busy with our OCP and all the work that we're doing.

Thank you.

I could probably supply that information offline though, Councillor Masson, if you're interested.

Councilor Rogers, just going to you, I I know that uh thanks for joining us, and I know you you've been ill.

Um so just providing you an opportunity to asking a question.

Uh no questions uh other than um should there be anything that we happen to have caught afterwards, we can always make amendments to the bylaw, correct?

Correct.

Uh the OCP bylaw can be amended with uh a motion and then uh staff consideration.

It's not automatic.

We'll still have to go through the same process.

Is that correct, Leah?

Um that is correct, umbias.

And as you know, we have sort of the second phase of the OCP update that um will be coming forward next year, and that will be an opportunity to catch potentially any lingering properties.

But uh I I hope they're I hope we got it all.

Yes, great.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh thank you, Leah.

Is there any other comments from municipal staff on the item before us?

Okay, now I'll turn to you sitting in the audience that you might have come for this agenda and are looking forward for an opportunity to address council and um voice your opinions.

Is there anybody from the audience that would like to address counsel on this um on this public hearing, particularly the OCP amendment?

Please.

Yeah, you do.

Sorry, it's just that uh it needs to be recorded and so people can hear you at home.

Just start with your name and uh the street that you uh live on.

Whoa, okay.

Sorry, I feel bad I came in a little late, so I think I've missed a few things.

But my name is Laura Webster and I live on Meadowvale Drive in the Burnside quadrant, I guess it's called.

And um I actually have more questions.

Like I'm trying to understand that all the residential homes that are currently single occupancy or plus have basement suites are now going to be designated as being able to have up to six units and up to three stories high.

And I'm trying to picture this happening in residential neighborhoods and how that works for density and parking.

And I feel like all the residential neighborhoods have kind of been painted with the same brush.

And I'm wondering if we're to be maybe a little bit more thoughtful as to where this more dense housing is meant to be.

I'm just trying to get my head around it, and I'm hoping you guys can help us tonight.

Yeah, I think I can answer some of it, and then I'll pass it over to Leah, who's an expert on it.

And so this is not a town decision, this is actually provincially legislated micromanagement of land use planning.

So uh particularly in what you're talking about is how many units can go on a standard lot.

Normally, Leah, cleric me if I'm wrong, it's four, with the exception of six, depending on uh how close it is to transit.

So I think um uh and and frequent transit has to create some threshold there.

Um, with the new legislation that they have passed it also eliminates the need for on-site parking again this is no decision that the town has made this is provincially legislated um kind of that that has come to get yeah no but please go ahead now sorry um so just also following what other municipalities are doing there seems to be and I could be wrong I'm thinking Oak Bay and Collwood where they have sort of covenants put in there where it has to follow the suitability of the neighborhood.

Like it has to match.

You can't just stick a tower in the middle like it's View Royal placing anything that says thank you, province.

However, for our municipality, we are going to place limitations and say this isn't appropriate here or it is here.

And I'm thinking of the Oak Bay thing that happened last week where they said yes you checked all the boxes, but this is a heritage site or what have you and I'm just wondering if View Royal is doing that too.

I'm going to let Leah field that one if you don't the one the one big one that we should point out is that uh council limited the total square footage of potentially four buildings on the property to the current maximum which is I think 3800 square feet.

So somebody couldn't come and build four 2,000 or 2,500 square foot buildings on the on the lot.

The maximum has size is 3,800 square feet.

So we we did what we could to potentially mitigate the damage of the provincial legislation.

Through the mayor, um, yeah, thank you for for that um additional information.

And um yes, we have our zoning, we have zoning regulations um for small-scale multi-unit housing, and as counselor Mattson said, there is a maximum uh floor area that can be um accommodated or permitted on on a property that allows for small-scale multi-unit housing.

The other thing that council did was um introduce a new development form of character development permit area for small-scale multi-unit housing across um the town.

So um we do have um some discretion over sort of the the form of character, and we have design guidelines within our OCP um that help sort of guide um you know what these buildings would look like and to ensure that they fit with the um yeah just the site the site context and and neighborhood context and um so that that those that's in place thanks for your question so I think it helps um uh bringing out some background so uh council has been struggling with adapting to uh yearly legislation that's been coming through this is um uh round one of that legislation that we're adapting to, please.

Which red button is the question, right?

There you go.

Good evening.

My name is Jody Zwicker.

I am living on Parkerch Place.

And I also happen to be a realtor.

So I'm here because I have a couple of questions about what we're we're doing here in View Royal.

I'm I'm actually quite proud of View Royal and seeing all the work that they've done with the rentals and the buildings, as much as it's caused traffic chaos in some areas.

Um we're way ahead of the game.

You know, municipalities like Oak Bay North Saanich really have done next to nothing and and they're getting their hands slapped by the province.

So there are lots of municipalities that haven't worked as hard.

So job well done.

I have a question though, um, and perhaps it can be directed to anyone.

How are the um restrictive covenants and building schemes playing into the new housing allotments?

You know, because it's on title, it's not uh within your scope of you know jurisdiction, so to speak.

So how are those things being circumnavigated or are they being released from title?

Um, did you take that into account when you designated these single family homes into that area that could potentially be multifamily homes?

Because some of these restrictive covenants are quite specific.

Um, one home, one auxiliary building, one family, that kind of thing.

Um, that's sort of my question.

Okay.

Yeah, yeah.

Um, the legislation is silent on building schemes, and I am not aware of um what of which properties in the town may have these building schemes or old building schemes that were registered on title like decades ago.

Uh, so it would be on a case by case basis, and we would deal with that at the time.

So if there was a building scheme registered on title, that's something that the town of U Royal can uh remove or um bypass?

Um through the mayor.

Uh unfortunately I can't give you that information tonight without reading a building scheme.

So again, it's case by case and we would cross that bridge if um if there's a property that comes if you know if we would get inquiries about a property with a building scheme, we would look at it.

And would the same go for a restrictive covenant?

Uh well uh I it with respect to yeah, I mean again the restricted covenant depends on who's party to that agreement.

Um and obviously all parties have to agree and and generally they're they're required would require council approval for any changes to or to modify a covenant.

Okay, that's my question.

Thank you.

Thank you, Anna, for your interest.

I think there's an interesting case going on in, I believe, West Vancouver now on the exact topic uh the topic of uh I think an entire neighborhood was under a similar covenant.

So I don't think uh the legislation is clear on it, so it would have to be one by one.

Uh any other questions from the audience, please.

Hello, um, my name is Vicki Kuen and I live on Chancellor Avenue.

And thank you for the opportunity to speak on this tonight.

I understand that my particular area has been coded neighborhood village.

So being transferred from three-story residential to up to six-story 2.5 Florida racial um space.

I'm just curious.

I I'm a full supporter of the growth and housing that that we need desperately in our province, not just in View Royal, and I appreciate all the work that staff has done.

But I'm just wondering about the rationale of that particular area, which is bas currently single-family homes, um, going to that dense.

Thank you for that question.

Um, through the mayor, those um parcels um that have um are proposed to be neighborhood village, that is in response to Bill 47, um, transit-oriented area, the legislation where we had um the town had to adopt a transit-oriented area.

We were prescribed a transit-oriented area within Bill 47, and we were mandated to update our zoning bylaw to reflect that.

And so these proposed OCP amendments are now consistent with our zoning bylaw because our again, our zoning bylaw and OCP both need to be consistent.

So we are you know required to make that update, that amendment.

And so I I don't know much about the process, so forgive my questions if they're not relevant.

But I assume in that process we've looked at our current infrastructures, the sewers, the storm water, um, waste systems, just to support that density in that area.

I can take that one, Leah.

The um the legislation that Leah referred to and is driving these OCP changes uh were in Landsworth, they're silent on infrastructure.

There's no pool of money associated with it.

And um I I don't want to come out and comment like I'm shaping somebody's thoughts here.

Um but essentially the cost of the infrastructure upgrades will go to existing residents.

Great.

I think based on the fact that it seems to be all kind of driven by that Bill 47, your answers to my questions are pretty much going to be the same for everything.

I I propose then that there any existing um applications didn't bear any consideration with the change to that particular area then from council.

Um no, the the provincial prescribed the area that is within the the transit-oriented area, which is uh 400 meters from uh proposed bus exchange next to the hospital and hospital way.

So all of those parcels within 400 meters are are captured as part of these OCP um as this bylaw amendment that is prescribed under Bill 47.

Go ahead, Counselor.

The other important thing that to acknowledge here is the province made some broad strokes in terms of how the things wanted development that things developed.

They didn't look at individual areas to see if whether they actually made any sense or not.

And so a lot of times, as you pointed out, developments of the scope that are imagined under the legislation just don't make any sense.

And I think on some of them uh the 10-story ones by the hospital, and uh they don't even need to have uh parking.

And so how that's ever going to happen or ever work, I don't know, but I what didn't happen was an area by area look by the province to see what does or doesn't make sense.

So I guess going forward as um development proposals come through council um on an individual basis, we'll have to address it without I see in the agenda today that you already have a report on that incon that intersection for Helmcken and Watkiss, um, exiting Chancellor Avenue.

Um not only exiting, turning left, do you take your life in your hands, but also crossing at a controlled crosswalk to get to the shopping center?

Um great risk to oneself.

Thank you very much for your time.

Thank you very much for your questions.

And uh maybe they spurred other questions on.

So if you weren't thinking about speaking and wanted to speak on it, um you're more than welcome.

This is your opportunity to do it and our opportunity to listen.

Is there anybody else in the room that wants to speak on the um OCP amendment specifically?

Going once, twice, three times.

Uh, and then we can go, Carl, that we received anything on the line uh mayor tomorrow excuse me mayor to bias there are no chat comments this evening okay thank you um then uh that concludes the comments from the public and i think we've received one letter dated the first of december from island view management and uh official community plan uh update for the western gateway designation which is uh of course related uh can i get a motion to receive.

So moved.

Moved by councillor mattson.

Seconded by councilor brown.

All those in favor.

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed.

Motion carries.

Um, am i missing anything before we terminate?

So we'll terminate this now.

And just a reminder for council and for counselor Rogers, of course, at home, that uh we really can't any entertain any new information now.

Uh that this um before we we actually terminate, we need to, if there's any other question about anything, uh now's the time to ask it because we can't consider it.

We already did.

Yeah, yeah, we received the report.

So no more questions.

Seeing none, so move to terminate.

Move by Councillor Matson, second by Councillor Brown.

All those in favor, uh move to terminate.