Council Meeting

Very much.

Welcome folks.

And for those of you tuning in from home, uh call the council meeting for the town of View Royal to order for Tuesday, April 15th, 2025.

And appropriate to start with a First Nations acknowledgement that we recognize the Quangwin speaking people known today as the Esquimalt Nation and the Songhees Nation, and that their historic connections to these lands continue to this day.

This evening we'll hear from the public during public participation and question periods in the agenda.

If you are wishing to address counsel regarding the application for 1414A Helmkin Road and Six Cameron Avenue, or uh 294-296 Eltham Road and 242 Helmkin Road or 3560 Highland Road, there'll be an opportunity in the respective portions of the agenda to address council with comments on any of those.

To provide any comments virtually during the public participation or ask any questions during the question period, you'll see a QR code or a URL on the live webcast screen as is casting now.

And you can either type it in or use your phone for the QR code, and you will see a pop-up that comes up.

You can type in your comment or question to be read aloud at the appropriate time by a member of a webcast team.

You'll need to provide your name and just your street name uh without a number on the form if you are speaking in council chambers.

Public participation comments are limited to five minutes and uh for each speaker and must be related to items on the agenda the question period is open uh to any question and is limited to two minutes uh for each and you will be timed by the meeting is 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 um can I get an approval of the agenda please moved seconded and would like to make an addition and what addition would you like to make under a new business um an addition with respect to twenty twenty five capital projects budget let's have a vote for that uh to address it now so we've got I know we're moving the agenda so this is to move counselor rogers um request to add uh an item under new business for twenty twenty five capital projects yes seconder yes second seconded by councilor mattson and do you wanna motivate council rogers?

Well, it it's with respect to the uh twenty twenty five budget discussions and um we had uh scheduled uh a date um uh April the 10th, but members of council would not uh available for that.

I thought it was going to be on tonight's budget, but it's too full, so we uh need to address it still.

So you want to uh bring the issue forward?

We might not go through and address it tonight, but come up with some resolution on the plan to do so, correct?

That's right.

Okay, thank you.

Uh any other questions, comments?

All those in favor?

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed, motion carries.

Uh so now getting back to the original motion with Councilor Brown uh had uh motioned, councillor Roger had seconded.

All those in favors of the agenda as so amended.

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed.

Uh motion carried.

And can I get a motion for the adoption of the minutes of April 1st council meeting, please?

Second.

Moved by Councillor Mattson, second by Councillor McKenzie.

All those in favor.

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed.

Motion carries.

Councilor Lemon is away with family.

Councillor Qualwich is joining us online this evening.

I also wanted to give a shout out to Councilor McKenzie and congratulations for being elected as the member at large for the Vancouver.

No, the Association of Vancouver Island Coastal Communities.

I get that right?

Okay.

I also wanted to give a shout out to Laura and Sarah for all the hard work that they've done wrangling all of the politicians that still feel the need to put up signs in our town that they know they're not allowed to anymore.

So we passed a bylaw um last year that said no election signs and it's kind of refreshing uh when you go through town compared to when you reach the borders of Callwood or Zaanich or Squimall and you're kind of knocked out of your car seat by the amount of uh signs.

So it's it's good to see that uh kind of limited the litter in um in View Royal.

Um I've also been taking a look, Sarah, if you'll join me uh particularly after this election, if there's any dip in uh voter turnout.

It makes it complicated now because they've adjusted the writings and where people uh vote, particularly in this next election, but I didn't see any drop off uh in the last election that we had uh for the provincial election where that was true.

Uh so thanks again uh for Laura and Sarah.

And I think that moves us down to public participation.

Is there anybody in the room that would like to address counsel on any issue related to any item on the agenda, but not those excluded items that are uh have their own space in them?

Anybody want to address counsel?

Going once, twice, three times.

Uh and Carl, over to you.

Is there any notes that came in?

Mayor Tobias, we have no messages on the boards this far.

Right.

Uh so I think that brings us down to bylaw, subdivision, and development service bylaw amendments Ivan, please.

Thank you, Mayor Tobias.

Ivan Leoung, Director of Engineering.

The purpose of this report is to provide a intermittent update to our subdivision development servicing bylaw 985.

Uh predominantly it is housekeeping items, um, but there is one additional item that's the new legislation local government act has enacted around the end of January.

And um council may want to consider uh establishing bylaw for the servicing officer.

But I'll get into the housekeeping items first and then the servicing item uh servicing officer item last.

So housekeeping items uh there's a a lot of our subdivision development bylaw is referring to other documents, um other design guidelines.

Uh many of them are actually over 10 years old and have been updated.

So uh a lot of these predominant changes are just meant to align with the with the revised guidelines or just bring up to date a lot of just sections and naming conventions and that.

Uh stonewater management, we do want to add a little bit of housekeeping items there uh for um updating our intensity duration frequency curve.

That one is over 10 years old, needs to be updated.

Uh it's it is in the um in the attached uh we want to clarify some calculation requirements and just general housekeeping updates sanitary sewer servicing uh staff recommend including a new clause to require new developments of older lots to replace the sanitary sanitary laterals all the way to the house um the reason why is because we're staff really feel the needs to protect the capacity of our sanitary sewer systems and um the data suggests that probably 60 percent of uh I and I through our inflow and infiltration within municipal systems comes on site.

So the idea is to have a new um sanitary service that goes all through the house to uh prevent water from stormwater from infiltrating in there, especially because anticipated growth could occur through small housing.

And then finally, there is an additional item about a latecomer charge calculation of interest rates.

So that was previously included in our land use bylaw, 85, and it was subsequently removed.

I believe the intent at that time, way back, was to re-include the interest rate into an additional bylaw, but it was forgotten.

So we do have one additional latecomer to do administratively, and so it's important for us to include this bylaw item in there.

Finally, the the the one that staff feel the need to enact fairly soon is the Bill 16 appointment of a servicing officer.

So the local government act has contained new provisions that creates the role of a servicing officer that can only be established through bylaw.

Um that requires that can compel an owner to of land to provide as a condition of building permit um dedication of roadway to provide sidewalks, uh second infrastructure.

Uh at this point, rezonings and subdivisions are where uh dedication of land um can be required.

Uh building permit is usually too late to do that.

So this this uh legislation allows the town to uh dedicate roads to provide these sidewalks.

Um, I believe it's specifically to uh address the housing bills that dealt with uh providing density that can go straight to building permit.

So this allows um local governments to provide those transportation um choices and gives them room to do it.

Uh well without further ado, the staff reports in front of you here.

We have the red line track changes of the bylaw.

Uh at this point, the recommend the recommendation of the staff report is just to receive it and then um byla deliberation after.

But happy to take any questions.

Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you.

Any questions?

Council Rogers.

Yes, thank you.

It all makes uh great sense, and I'm glad we're catching up on some of these things, uh, particularly uh in in terms of protecting the uh town's capacity on sewers and so on.

Um, but I'm a little uh confused, and maybe you can uh clarify the latecomers charge and yeah, how did that apply for the town or for those that might be developing property?

Uh yeah, so uh Mayor Tobias, so latecomers, there's actually not a lot of areas in the town that would go through a latecomers agreement.

A latecomers is basically when a developer is required to provide excess or extended services.

So if our town was not fully built out with the sanitary sewer system, and if a developer is requires to uh provide a sanitary sewer in front of the property or extend it beyond, then uh that developer would be um they're able to obtain funding from future people tying into that system.

So that's the latecomer.

Um it is very detailed and informed by the Local Government Act.

And the Local Government Act basically stipulates that the town can enter these agreements with developers and that the interest rate charge should be developed by the town.

So in this report, the interest rate charge recommended is 5%, which is in line with, I believe, BC borrowing, if I'm correct.

Historically, it was been prime minus two.

It is administrative heavy, and that was done a long, long time ago.

So not exactly applicable.

I do know that other local governments do a flat rate of 5% as well.

Um but generally speaking, it allows developers to recapture some monies uh due to them having to go above and beyond their services.

An example, the only example that I really knew of that we've had in VO's past was with respect to Heart Road and the traffic light there.

And um we had um effectively and thankfully um worked with a developer to get a latecomers agreement and any other development that happened on that street uh to help offset his enormous costs and putting in the light.

So is is what we're talking about?

Is that something similar to with this similar intent of um um anticipating further developments to help cover the costs?

Um yeah, Maryor Tobias, it can be.

I don't recall of any um needs for transportation-related latecomers in the f in the future.

Right now it's uh the one that's the top of my head is sanitary sewer at the end of Atkins Road.

Um historically, the town has entered many latecomer agreements.

Uh a good example is a sidewalk uh along Canard uh was done as a latecomer due to the the large development on um Canard and Camden as a good example.

Um I believe Chilco, that big development was also there's some late comer agreements in that as well.

Uh great.

So if there's no other questions or got some more questions or comments?

Thanks.

So previously we could only charge or get somebody who's doing a development uh if they were subdividing to provide sidewalks or funds for sidewalks and street improvements.

Did you say now with changes to Bill 16 the town can charge anybody who when they get a building permit for road improvements?

Yeah, Mayor Tobias, it's not everything.

So we still need to respect our subdivision development bylaw.

So what the town cannot do is when a building permit comes in, say we're going to dedicate 10 meters of road.

um uh dedications uh there's some uh pinch points within the harbor precinct for example where if uh a small housing came in without a um without this servicing officer position in place then we may not be able to put in a sidewalk because there's no property so it's we're talking about small little adjustments there thank you any other comments questions anybody want to move the staff recommendation followed seconded moved by councillor mattson seconded by counselor McKenzie all those in favor any opposed thank you mayor seeing none opposed uh that brings us to subdivision and development serving servicing bylaw or am I using the right one here I would move uh first to third on bylaw one one five two uh so we counselor rogers uh moves counselor brown seconds for uh the adoption or for uh first to third reading first to uh third reading for bylaw one one five two uh any comments any motivation yep okay it's good is good enough motivation um counselor brown it's it's good as well all right if there's no comments uh all those in favor?

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed, uh bylaw uh one one five two uh passes first to third reading and zoning bylaw nine zero zero.

I would move final adoption of bylaw one one three one with respect to uh Helmick and Camden Townhouse development.

Sir Seconder Seconder by Councillor Uh Brown.

Any uh motivation that you want to provide, Councilor Rogers?

No, it's uh we this matter is gonna come up again in form of character, so off we go.

Thank you.

All those in favor?

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed, uh motion carries, and I think that brings us to uh staff reports uh 91A.

Yeah.

Thank you, Council.

Uh Sterling Square presenting on the uh development permit uh file 2024-05 for 1414A Helmkin and sixth Cabinet Avenue.

Uh purpose of the presentation is uh update, and then uh council may consider issuance of the development permit uh as well.

So site overview.

Um in the yellow are the three properties 1414A Helmkin and 6th Camden Avenue, uh located at the uh boundary of the town, located within the uh the west, sorry, the um northern uh gateway community corridor next to Eagle Creek uh shopping center.

It is uh currently three uh properties, one of them uh actually now two of them vacant, and one of the properties has a single-family dwelling on it.

Um it is occupied and will be uh demolished uh should the development be approved uh and would be required to be demolished for uh the build of the UI proposal so overview of the site plan here and then uh images surrounding the site plan are renderings of what the uh proposed project would look like in context of the surrounding neighborhood the um property is uh going to be uh is proposed for 12 uh townhouse units um each of which would be uh two bedrooms and would be complete with a uh parking space for a single vehicle there are two on-site green spaces.

One of them is located at the corner of the intersection of Helmkin and uh Camden, and that would also feature as a uh off uh off leash uh dog area for residents of this uh development.

And then the uh other on-site green space, designated green space is a cunal gathering space and uh garden uh and that is located at the uh rear of the property uh adjacent to 8 Camden Avenue.

With respect to uh the intent of this permit, which is mixed uh uh mixed mixed residential development permit area and its guidelines, the uh application meets uh the general intent of the guidelines of the OCP, uh provides a unified architectural uh style, um, does use uh non-traditional what we call West Coast uh materials.

It uses um fiber cement and uh metals, uh but uh staff feels that it uh is overall visually appealing and uh provides a unified, like I said, uh architectural style.

The building is ground oriented, uh, which is a big factor in the design uh guidelines of the mixed residential development permit area.

So the units are accessible from uh Helmkin Road and the uh units are also accessible uh off of uh Camden Avenue via uh uh uh uh maneuvering aisle.

The feature of the on-site green spaces certainly adds a lot to the uh to the site and um the buffering that's provided between the street and the uh the site provide a lot of visual appeal for pedestrians that would be walking on Helmkin and Cabden next to uh the proposal the applicant made one uh minor change to the uh application since this was presented to council or actually rather the community of the whole uh back in January.

It's a minor uh visual change and it's just to the style of the windows.

Um staff don't don't see this as uh being a uh overall negative to the application.

Uh it still meets uh what we could refer to as eyes on the street within the development permit area guidelines.

Um this was a change that was informed by the applicant's uh structural engineer, and um it was uh, as I believe necessary for the uh the proposal and the design that was uh being brought forward.

And um that that change can be reviewed in the attachment of the staff report.

So you can take a look between attachments two and uh attachment three and see the uh the visual change.

With respect to the uh the landscaping, um the proposals to plant uh 22 new trees on the site, which are a mix of uh native and non-native species.

The applicant has also worked with a landscape designer that uh will provide a uh 100% native plantings of ground covers and uh different shrubs and and plantings, and everything will be designed to the uh the BC uh landscaping uh uh standard that is uh identified in the official community plan uh mixed residential development guidelines with respect to replacement and uh tree removal there's going to be 11 bylaw protected trees that will be removed the uh staff and the applicant have worked uh quite a quite hard on preserving some trees along Helmkin that was our uh identified early in this process so the way that um we've we've done that is by uh setting the building back from the the flanking yard and uh from the front yard, and um we have uh preserved some of those older uh trees on the corner of Helmkin and uh and Helmkin and Camden.

The applicant would be uh providing a an arborist uh or has provided an arbist report, and um the um arborist reports uh would be supplied through a tree permit at the time of the uh building permit, should the development permit be uh approved by council.

With respect to this uh development permit, there are four total variances.

The first variance is to the uh rear yard uh shown in the the red lines there.

The variance is required just because of the sighting of the building.

Uh the variance is to reduce the root minimum required uh sighting from six meters down to three meters.

Uh staff believe this is supportable given the majority of the building is uh greater than um three meters away.

It's actually really just that corner on the uh the corner of the building that's uh next to Camden that's close to three meters, and uh the position of the building has been uh pushed further back from the uh the uh rear yard.

Uh it's also supportable because of the extent of vegetation um that's going to be present and uh and a fence.

So there'll be uh separation from those yards of the um the proposed development and uh the existing home on 8 Camden.

The second variance is to the number of small car parking spaces.

Uh what would be permitted in this uh application is four total parking small car parking spaces.

The applicants requesting uh variance to increase from four to five.

Um staff have uh a few concerns with this but are supportive.

Uh the concern is just that with supplying um two bedroom style uh townhouse units that are largely uh being uh designed for young families, professionals uh without any designated storage space uh space we um we're just a bit concerned that the the garage may soon double up as a storage space in the in the future um and um we we can't regulate the the size of car that uh may be parked there, but um it's a relatively uh minor concern, I think.

If there was vehicles that were being parked off site, they would be subject to bylaw review.

And this is in respect to the space of the actual drive drive aisle.

The reduction that's being requested is from 7.6 meters down to 6.7 meters, and staff are supportive of this.

The applicants provided a plan um uh uh maneuvering awful plan from their transportation engineering and a memo that uh confirmed that a vehicle up to the size of an F 150 truck, which is a fairly large vehicle, um, could maneuver within this space uh as well as move in and out of the the parking uh spaces within both the small car spaces and uh regular car spaces uh without uh impact of the buildings or or running over landscaping.

Um so for that reason uh staff are supportive of uh of the variants.

I have a question on that one.

I remember.

Uh thank you, Mary Tabas.

The the final variance is to uh the heat pumps.

Um the applicants proposed heat pumps um for all 12 units.

The heat pumps that are being uh requested for variants are those located on Homkin Road.

The zoning bylaw states that uh heat pumps cannot be located within the flanking yard.

Um staff feel that this is uh supportive just because uh of the uh the intent when looking at the kind of the history of the bylaw.

Uh we're looking at an 11-year-old zoning bylaw.

A lot's changed with the um design of heat pumps in that time.

Um, with regard to size, sound.

Um, staff feel that um this also supports uh much of the town's uh movement towards uh climate goals and uh emissions reductions.

So for those reasons, we can uh we can support the uh location of the heat pumps in the flanking yard.

Um that's the conclusion of the presentation.

The recommendation is to um uh adopt or or issue the um the development permit with the four veterances uh covered in the presentation.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Counselor Matson, please lead with your question.

Yes, the maneuvering aisle.

Um I'm assuming you've talked to the fire chief and he's happy that that won't impede the fire trucks.

Through the mayor, the uh the the applicant provided a uh uh a turning template or an access template for the uh the fire trucks and there was no observed problems.

Okay.

Any other vehicles that might have a problem with narrower aisle widths that would normally use that.

I uh not uh I don't I don't think so.

I I'm not maybe clarify what uh what you're asking.

I don't know, like garbage trucks or things that would normally go in there that would be our moving trucks.

Is there any sort of vehicles that would have a hard time getting in and out of that area?

Like somebody might bring the big semi in there to move if it's a if it's a larger vehicle, just like the fire truck, it would be uh a drive-in and it would have to back out.

There's not enough space to turn around within the maneuvering aisle.

Okay, so your answer is there isn't any type of vehicle that you know that would be an issue?

Not that I'm aware of those is yeah, kind of okay.

Yes, yeah.

Council Rogers.

Um the uh the matter of um the um heat pumps that are going to be on the flanking uh uh yard, that is the front yard um uh for the building block A, uh where are the heat pumps for building block B, the one behind.

If we can pull up the presentation again, um I can I can point that out.

Uh the the heat pumps are going to be located in the rear yard.

Um so on building B, they'll be located along um the bottom portion of uh of building B.

So it no there won't be any heat pumps in the uh in the laneway?

There won't be any heat pumps in the lane.

Okay, so that that seems to have, if I recall it was a bit of a change initially there were the heat pumps in in the laneway and I guess now they've now been moved all of them have been relocated?

Through the mayor no they they've always been located uh in the flanking yard and in the rear yard okay thank you any other questions counselor Matson yeah um this in terms of the design I mean I mean I saw some other larger renderings and I sort of like the way it looks because I'm really not happy with some of the square buildings we have.

But I mean maybe this is a probably a question for uh for staff or maybe for the the applicant later but uh uh will we be saying, oh OMG, these places were built in 2025 because they're just become uh something that doesn't age well?

Or I I guess what I'm trying to get your feel is like will these things age well and still look good 20 years from from now, or we or would we say, geez, why did we approve those things?

Through the mirror from respect to the uh the building materials, I mean so the fiber cement, that's very common, uh commonly used in new uh new building.

Um metal siding, I'm not overly familiar with.

That might be a question for the applicant.

Um they're in attendance tonight.

And um, in terms of the design of the the building, um uh we're working with fairly standard architectural design of the roof pitches.

Okay, so I'll wait for the applicant to let me know about how great a design this is and how it will look great 20 years from now.

So I'm sure he'll be able to tell me.

So any more questions for staff?

I'd like to rather do this instead of going back and forth if we can just finish up with staff.

Anything more to add, Steph?

No, very device.

Great.

Leaves us uh an opportunity to um before we go for comments from the applicant and questions to him.

Uh can I get a motion to receive the email that's also attached with this file?

Uh shape.

And seconded by counselor matts and all those in favor.

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed uh from the applicant.

Uh would you like to make any comments and present yourself perhaps for some questions from council, please?

Uh Wayne Hopkins, the applicant.

Um, thank you very much.

I want to first confirm that the plan that we saw the last few times I was here is is the plan that's before you today, other than the minor change to do with the window configuration, and that was necessitated by being able to actually build the building through the structural engineer.

This is also the same plan that all the neighbors that have participated and engaged have seen throughout the process.

So there's no changes.

I know the term variance can make them think that maybe something's changed from what they've seen.

It's not, it's just the way the process is structured.

Also, thank you to staff for it's being quite a process.

Um, and it was nice to see their their recommendation to support um the way the application is being done in relation to its design, its features, and the the variances as defined.

One note that our final tenant, we were able to help facilitate relocation already.

So they actually moved out just a few days ago into another single family home.

We're able to stay in the area.

So their kids stay in the same schools and sports.

So it worked out really well.

Yes, storage is always a concern in townhouses and small lot single family.

Our experience has been that when you supply a driveway in front of the garage specific to the use of that individual unit, you do see a lot of garages starting to be used for primarily storage, and then they end up parking outside the unit.

Our experience is when that is their primary parking space, that doesn't occur.

So that's one of the reasons why we like the design configuration that we've done.

We're doing something very similar in Sydney right now with the same same same theory.

But recognize that between buildings it's actually 9.2 meters.

It's restricted in measurement according to the bylaw due to the landscaping that was added to the interior.

So it makes the clear width only six point something meters but it is 9.2 meters between buildings so there is a lot of more maneuvering aisle than you would have with a typical six meter wide drive aisle.

One note that the heat pumps all of them are also screened from view to make them a little more visually appealing.

And as you probably know the new the new outdoor heat pump units are considered whisper quiet.

I I've been beside some that are actually on and I didn't even know they were on until you felt the wind.

So I think the old concerns of yesterday to do with the noise that came from heat pumps has definitely definitely changed.

Just one note on the flanking side.

I still haven't figured out where the front lot line is.

Um, because it is a weird configured property.

I believe the smallest corner that faces the corner of Camden and Helmakin is actually considered the front yard, which means the the buildings that are facing Helmliken, which I've always mentally had as the front yard, is actually a flanking yard.

So that's where I think some of the confusion may have come from in relation to where they've always been positioned basically in the personal space of each unit as opposed to elsewhere.

And quickly to the design elements, um in 20 years, um, I believe it's still gonna be a marquee building.

Um, as we mentioned originally we specifically went with a more upbeat colorful design um as opposed to the typical different shades of gray you see with most multifamily developments um in my experience those buildings tend to stay relevant and become quite unique um i'm not gonna compare them directly to the painted ladies of seattle um but or san francisco sorry um but it does kind of follow that that concept that they're designed to stand out, they're designed to be fresh and fun.

Um, and in 20 or 30 years with the type of materials that are used, if there's a decided change of color, or it's just a matter of painting the Hardy product.

That's all the comments I have, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Really?

Um Councillor McKenzie, why don't you leave?

Thank you.

I just wanted to ask some questions based on on what you said there.

Um first around the maneuvering aisle.

So you mentioned that uh with the landscaping, it it would be bigger than 6.7.

Uh, however, would that mean, for instance, a car would drive on to grass and like ruin that landscaping?

Is that no, it's from garage door to garage door, parking space to parking space is 9.2 meters, I think nine point something meters.

Um, and then if you look at the actual landscape drawing um in between units there's landscaping it's not grass it's shrubbery and some trees um the maneuvering study that was done by wad engineering and provided to staff specifically focused on showing that you can maneuver within the dry aisle getting in and out of your garage without making contact with the landscaping okay thank you and um just uh your comment about uh places that have the garage as the primary parking spot.

So are any of the units like that?

Or I I thought e all of them had some sort of driveway.

These all have the garages are their are their primary parking space.

They don't have a dedicated driveway where they sit in front of the unit.

Um and the other thing about storage too is that you've probably seen them in townhouses now.

There's some pretty spectacular garage storage systems that really utilize um wasted space in garages.

Um speaking of somebody who's in the midst of trying to downsize 15 years of clutter and stuff, I wish I didn't have the space to have all the stuff that I have.

So it does it definitely is part part of a lifestyle as well.

If you don't have the space, you're not gonna retain.

Thank you.

Councilor Metz.

I'm just wondering, do you have uh pictures of similar projects you could send?

I'm just curious to get a visual.

Of this of this type of project?

Yeah.

Um like the design, the design and the colors.

I just like personally like to be able to see sort of real life.

Yeah, there's two there's two components to it.

There's the design elements and then there's the colors.

In our opinion, they come together.

But the design elements can combine some traditional aspects and some Scandinavian aspects with the way that usually you would see townhouse blocks with flat roofs.

We personally find that boring.

Um, and we also find it to be more expensive in the long term for operating costs for the owners because flat roofs have to be replaced way more often.

These ones being a slope roof also provided some individual identity to each unit as well as provided a more durable and long lasting roof.

It was designed we were trying to design even though it's a attached townhouse by using the colors the roof line and other divisions in materials we're trying to create that appearance when you walk up to a unit it feels individual as part of a group as opposed to all being exactly the same.

Do I have any examples of combining these types of colors?

And and that shape.

Again, again, I saw bigger, bigger rendering.

I I liked it.

I liked it better than some of the things we've we've seen recently.

I just wanted to know if you had a a real life example to show me.

Just nothing that I've built.

I'm sure I can send you something that from our architects.

We went through quite a few different images before we settled on it.

Yeah, that that's all I'm looking for.

Councilor Rogers.

Yeah, this is uh probably nothing's nothing to do with the whole thing, but with respect to the design of the roof design it's obviously very uh unique, but um I'm wondering about the the the uh challenges of roof maintenance like leaves and and whatnot buildup.

Um you know, I know it's a Straty Council's problem, but um do these design roof designs have uh some means of being able to uh address that um that issue of leaf clutter and over the uh over the year well first let me clarify i don't find the the roof design and the townhouse design unique like the lines um it's quite common in in rural housing in lots of different parts of the world um what you see here it's just it's not very common here because like i said most of the time for lack of a better term architects get lazy with flat roofs um as opposed to trying to be a little more creative.

From a maintenance perspective, we actually discussed that.

Um, you can't really see it on the plan, but in between each roof, there's actually um something called a cricket.

It's designed so the center of the roof doesn't accumulate that there's actually a hidden slope that you can't see from the road or see from anywhere that forces all the water to the front or the rear so it actually makes contact with the downspouts.

Any other comments, questions?

Uh yeah, I I mean I I lived in the neighborhood and uh uh I think this is three lots that had three single-family homes on them at one point.

Uh one is down, another one just got removed, and you've already relocated the other tenant.

Um, I'm highly supportive because I think this is the gentle densification that the neighborhood was looking for, but allowing places for families to live and share in the community.

Um, so everything that I think I've I've heard from my neighbors were were quite supportive of uh of this, knowing what else could have gone in there.

They preferred this as opposed to the three-story condo thing.

Uh, that's for sure.

Um just turning to comments from the public.

If we've got any comments, or is there anything you wanted to add?

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Wayne.

Any comments specifically to this application from anybody here?

Nobody?

Um, as a result of the mail out, Leanne, do we get any response?

I saw the only email we got was that thanks for uh using this from Moti but uh or transportation, but we've moved to a different system, I think was was the so we we got no feedback from the public.

Correct, no correspondence received.

Okay, thank you.

Um and vision.

Yeah, that's where I'm going next.

Uh Carl, did we have anybody um submit any forms on this particular topic online?

Mayor Tobias, we have no comments on this topic.

Okay, thanks, Carl.

Uh so we've uh gone through it all.

Is there any final comments or uh before we go to uh motion on it?

Uh is there a seconder?

Uh thank you.

Seconded by Councillor Brown.

Do you want to motivate the uh yeah yes uh this has certainly been before us and we've had lots of opportunities to review it and and hear from the public.

Um it's a uh uh as uh your worship you've already said, uh an innovative design that uh will uh certainly add character to uh to the streetscape and and um hopefully encourage uh others along Helmkin to uh uh develop and and make use of the close amenities of excellent transportation and uh and the parks nearby.

Thank you.

Thanks, Councillor uh Rogers Councillor Brent just kudos to Mr.

Hopkins it's a really it's a really nice plot I like it right from square one and we talked about it a long time ago and I'm really pleased that uh we're making progress to getting that done thank you thank you counselor Metz yeah I'm other than wanting to see some real life examples I I like the fact that it's different and that and I like that it's not square and I again I certainly like this type of row housing versus you know, three or four story apartments, which I don't think really add anything to either the the drive through the town.

And uh it's much nicer having the you know still get the families into the townhouses and so they still have a a spot spot for each family.

It's the way I think we should go in terms of uh our thoroughfares rather than large apartments.

Thank you, Council Matson.

Anybody else?

We got a mover and a seconder uh to uh move uh staff's recommendation and that's the proposed development meeting all the town zoning bylaw requirements with those uh variants that we're including and uh that the development permit with variances uh include the following conditions that's landscape uh plant selection and on-site lighting to be dark skies friendly um think that's everything staff all those in favor i think so i paraphrased yeah oh sorry yeah moving staff recommendation for the wrong one thank you counselor mackenzie so it is uh um helmkin road and six camden 91a and it's proposed development meets all the town zoning variances, and it was the rear yard setback, total maximum number of uh small car parking from four to five, reduced the minimum width uh of a maneuvering aisle from 7.6 to 67 meters, and locate the residential heat pump with the flanking yard.

Um those in favor.

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed, motion carries.

Thank you to the applicant and thank you, staff, for the hard work.

And I think this brings us to you, Jeff, if I'm not mistaken.

Thank you, Mayor Tobias.

Jeff Chow, Senior Planner.

Uh, this is an application for uh 294 and 296 Altham Road and 242 Helmkin Road to construct uh five um blocks of three-story townhouses containing a total of 20 units.

Um council may recall that's property was recently rezoned to permit this use, and today we're considering the uh farm and character of the development.

Um variances are requested and we'll we will uh discuss that a little bit further in the presentation.

Um yeah, so the proposal is to construct um town a townhouse type development with uh five blocks around a central driveway.

Um the uh unit amenities would include uh rooftop terraces and ground level garages.

The site amenities would include a uh children's play structure in the uh kind of the far corner of the the site.

Um there'll be three visitor parking spaces, which exceeds the uh the zoning bylaw requirement of two visitor spaces.

And parking would be within the ground floor garages of those buildings.

And outdoor bicycle rack would be provided on site.

Street tracing units would have individual uh front doors and front yards.

The uh the proposal compliance with the mixed residential development permit area guidelines by having um facades, windows, roof lines, and balconies that would provide articulations and variations to the building form to avoid blank walls and kind of a boxy look.

And this this uh illness rendering kind of shows how there's like different planes through the building.

It's not just a just a big rectangle.

Um the materials would be durable and high quality, which uh reflects the west coast design kind of character, bringing elements of wood and kind of a natural color palette for street-facing units.

Um street level units have um have entrances to help enhance the streetscape and provide opportunities for interaction with the neighborhood.

These residential entrances would have weather protections, be visible from the street, and actually each uh each door would have a different color, so um, so there is kind of individual individual character to each of the units.

Uh the DP guidelines call for um uh access to private outdoor space, and uh for this site they have outdoor space at the ground level and on rooftop terraces.

A couple of variances are requested.

Uh the first one is for building height.

The required building height is 11.25 meters, and the proposal is for 11.78.

This had to do with kind of a an oversight of the time of preparing the zoning bylaw.

Has to do with um the way buildings are measured.

They're measured uh to the um to the natural grade.

And in this case, uh the buildings a bit closer to Helmkin Road would be a little bit higher to so that the site is is level because there is a slope to the site.

Um so the actual buildings that are closer to the Ashley Gatehouses will be will be three stories, no height variance is required for them.

It's only for the three buildings that are uh as you get closer to Helmkin Road.

The geodetic building heights are the same as the concept that was shown at the time of rezoning and the variance purpose of the variance is allow the site to have a consistent level slope so that um so that there can be uh good access into the uh into the drive into the uh individual garages second variance is for the width of maneuver now similar to the uh previous application the uh the proposed technically is kind of six meters where the requirement is 7.6 uh in this case the um the the variance is because there are uh some pinch points in the way the just the buildings are kind of laid out but in principle the space between garage doors of the of the units because the garage doors are set in from the building uh they that's how they achieve the 7.6 meter uh space between garage doors uh the applicant has provided uh turning templates that show that standard cars can back in and out uh uh easily and as with the previous proposal uh if you have a larger vehicle they would they may have to make a three-point turn to to get in and out uh this layout has been tested with a um uh fire truck turning template to make because this there's a corner to the uh a turn of the driveway and uh there's sufficient radius for uh a firetruck or other large vehicles to uh enter the and exit the driveway the third variance is to is for the sighting of an accessory structure in this case it's just a um it's just a uh arch trellis uh that provides a pedestrian entrance to uh the site there is a kind of um there's an alleyway between two buildings uh facing the um facing altham street and that's kind of a pedestrian uh entrance and altham for uh other units further into the site and this is just an arch trellis that kind of provides marks the entryway and kind of creates kind of an entrance feature uh so there's there's no real uh significant impacts from that so in conclusion uh the proposal um uh is consistent with the development per mirror guidelines the variances that we've discussed um have a rationale for their support um and the recommendation is to uh support the proposal uh there's some additional conditions to add that the uh that uh bear to bias kind of gave us a uh a sneak preview on is that the site lighting needs to be dark skies friendly so basically downward focused not too bright and the landscape uh the landscape to be installed must meet the uh BC standard landscape standard as in terms of the size of plantings and they be irrigated for a certain amount of time that concludes the presentation thanks Jeff uh any questions for Jeff also Council Mutz or sorry councilor Rogerson okay uh thank you um in the drawings here I'm trying to get a sense of again the um screening um from this development to the house that's uh to the north.

Um can you show me on any of your pictures what kind of screening will be provided to the house to the north?

Yes, that's right.

Yeah.

So probably the best way to show it might be this is the landscape plan.

Uh but uh so there would there's a there's kind of an existing hedge on that neighboring property and the and also there's a separation provided us by there's a stat right away that provides kind of a spatial separation.

The house to the north is uh actually located um past the past the building so there's no direct oversight of the building from uh the three uh from the from this development yeah, but he's he's still going to be driving down his his whole entire property is uh shouted with a I think a rather large high wall.

And uh is there going to be um uh trees on top of that wall or uh another f uh fence uh to you know help shield and provide some privacy for the uh n northern neighbor and his lot.

Yeah, so again the existing hedges on the neighbor's property, so they actually it is in place for live privacy for their yard.

Um there's uh yeah, in this case it is kind of the front yard of that building where it's basically just this driveway and kind of a garage area.

Um we'd received uh correspondence from somebody um who's concerned about the height and about the turning radius.

Unfortunately, we don't know um where they live.

But the turning radius is interesting because um in the previous uh application we heard it was going from what 7.6 to uh what was it uh 6.7, and this has gone down in a variance down to six.

So um a six-meter variance is is um even smaller, tighter than the Camden uh application we just heard.

And we still think fire trucks are going to be able to navigate this.

Uh we've got the endorsement from Paul.

Uh yes, the fire department did review this proposal.

So the turn, the buildings are, you see, there's a stagger in in the layout of the the southern buildings, so that uh so this template uh actually shows the uh shows the radius of the fire track turning it out um and six meters is adequate space for of step that's a kind of standard that you see in sort of bare land strata subdivisions as well um and there are a couple of um there's only a couple of points where the just the way the buildings are are located that that do you have that kind of six meter kind of uh separation yeah uh next question is uh if interestingly, one of the variances you've noted is that the uh uh unit uh development adhered to the dark skies policy um uh was there any particular reason why this uh um stipulation should be noted for for this particular development?

Because I noted it wasn't uh an aspect or requirement of uh maybe it's a standard policy for uh the Camden.

Any particular rationale?

Uh at this point the lighting plan has not been developed.

So other projects that have a lighting schedule, we will review them with the guidelines to make sure there's no like lights shining into the sky.

So basically if you have a lighting plan that shows that lights are shining down, then that meets the intent of the guidelines.

So that's still to be developed.

You your your point's well taken and I appreciate this because it is facing north, it is facing the observatory um on Stanish Mountain.

So um in terms of helping to reduce that kind of light pollution, does make sense.

So thank you for adding.

Councillor McKenzie.

So the concern I have is around the rooftop terraces, in particular, new noise and uh privacy because they can look onto the house in behind or Ashley uh the townhouses there.

So have there been any discussions with the applicant around ways, materials that they can use to mitigate both of those, like privacy and noise potentially.

Um I don't I haven't had that discussion with them.

They are uh, I believe they should be online too.

They may be able to answer that question better than me in terms of the details of it.

I think the landscape plan uh does uh oh does show a little bit of the um the layout of the rooftop terraces, so there would be some um planters there that would help kind of um uh absorb some of the sound that may arise.

That's that's the right hand uh lower right hand corner of the screen.

Any other comments, questions?

Um at Councillor Rogers.

Thank you.

Another comment, and this actually arose from um uh last council meeting where we were talking about concerns of uh the traffic that would be coming out of Eltham from this development and uh Lyons Cove and and Ashley Gates, and um um you know the whole challenges of being able to make left hand turns with the increased traffic and and the new development that's coming in at the corner.

So um instantly councillor Matson made a suggestion, and I'll read it for him, is that uh that perhaps the developer should include in the uh in the performer, whatever two future buyers and and uh owners that um uh that they be made aware that um uh it a no left turn out of Eltham in the future may occur and as uh as uh safety or congestion factors uh uh require it.

My concern is that um people have to come in with eyes wide open.

Usually what they do is they uh they read the performing the specs and whatever the salesman gives them.

And I think when you see the location of this driveway right at the intersection or close to the intersection with all the other cars that have taken dibs on, uh they may neck never get out.

So it might be worthwhile, particularly if there's no um we decide that safety matters, collisions, and goodness knows what else, um have now necessitated no left turns.

So wouldn't we want to head them off at the pass and let make sure that the developer informs the residents that this could be a possibility and um buyer beware?

Um I will defer to I might defer to the director for engineering, but uh one thing I might say is in any situation on any street in View Royal, situations change if if traffic volumes change.

I I I would assume that engineering department would reevaluate the safety of any intersection.

This would be no different.

Uh mirror toias, uh council will recall that staff will be providing a report to council with respect to traffic at the intersection of Eltham Helmkin.

Um at the last meeting with respect to that roadway uh staff represented a non-issue.

That's it.

Council wish to have a report, so that will be forthcoming.

If I may wish.

Yeah, just wanted to follow up on uh hidden oaks right across the road from Helmkin, the development we just uh approved has been there for decade.

And that one has a no left turn.

And every day I see somebody taking a left turn out of there.

So we can post it, but whether actually people follow it, it's kind of like the speed limit.

No, I I quite agree.

And and um um it it drivers will take their risks, and it is indeed already a double yellow line.

So um uh that in itself uh should be a lesson that uh no one should do a left out no matter what kind of barricades, whatever we do.

I guess it's um it's just something that um uh we and we should be anticipating, and I think human nature should um uh guide us here, and and it it just adds um an awareness factor to uh to the developers' projects and proposals to future buyers, and and uh that's just the way it is.

Now maybe they'll realize that they won't just come on a Sunday, quiet Sunday morning after church, but they may hit a rush hour and see that it is pretty terrifying trying to get out.

So it's just a thought, and I thought uh Councillor Mattson had raised a good point.

Thank you, Councillor Rogers.

Any other comments, questions?

Nothing.

Um, thanks, Staff, for the report.

Um, uh, do we have the applicant in the room or online?

Uh they should be online.

And uh for the applicant, if you'd like to make any comments and be open to any questions from council, please.

Um hi, uh my name is Daniel Martins, and I represent Anchorman Moshan Architects.

And um basically just to start with the neighbor to the north.

Um his driveway and our sort of right-of-way green space that we got are on the same level.

There's no high retaining walls there, plus a fence or anything like that.

So we're basically at the same level as this driveway.

Where there is a high retaining wall is between us and Ashley townhomes on the east side.

So the townhomes are three and a half meters higher than what we are.

So there's a big retaining wall at the back there.

And the townhouses actually overlook our townhouses.

We've created planter boxes with little hedges on them to give ourselves some privacy because we're actually being overlooked by the townhouses that are further up.

Um, and besides that, um I think I'm open to any other questions that any other counselor might have.

Thank you, Daniel.

Any other questions for the applicant?

Councillor Rogers?

Yes, uh, thank you.

You you'd heard my uh comments and and concerns with respect to um uh the buildup of traffic, um, and that's going to be coming on Alpha and uh uh a likely backup because there will only be one lane, no left, no left turn, no right lane turn.

So it'll be an interesting stack of vehicles and who knows what kind of um frustrations and uh difficulties that uh I won't say road rage.

But um uh are you concerned that um with your um uh you know your proposed development that uh your tenants or uh occupants would uh be um concerned about their inability to get out of Eltham or out of the complex onto Eltham and onto um um Helmaken?

No, not really, because we had conversations with our traffic engineer, and the traffic engineer has actually said to us that 20 units don't really affect the traffic on that road with a huge impact.

Um, when you think about 20 units um at peak hour when people are going to work in the morning or in the afternoon when they're coming back from work, those 20 units will be spread out over maybe a one-hour period.

And the amount of cars coming out of our driveway onto Alfin Road will be one car every three or four minutes, which when they go to that intersection with the other cars that are coming from Ashley Townhomes, that's not going to create a traffic jam on that corner or people waiting for one car to turn out before the next car turns out.

So the left looking left, it's a straight road coming from the left.

So looking left and turning left um is really just a problem because of the road coming from the right hand side, it's a little bit of a hidden uh situation, and that's why we've got a big corner cut on our site to open up the view, the angle uh of oncoming cars from the other direction.

So it's like the engineering department said that once um everything's operational, if they see that there will be a problem on that corner, which I doubt it very much, then they will deal with it by putting up extra signage or doing something to that intersection.

Thank you.

Yes, I I'd noticed that you had uh uh work with staff to improve the site visibility.

Thank you.

Any other questions for the applicant?

Seeing none.

Uh can I get a motion to receive uh the correspondence we had associated with that from M Townsend, please?

I'll second Don.

Moved by Councilor Rogers, seconded by Councillor Mattson.

Oh okay, moved by Councillor Brown, seconded by Counselor Mattson.

Um any comments?

The correspondence.

All those in favor?

A receipt.

Any opposed?

Motion carries.

And uh so I think that uh brings us uh comments from the public.

Um is there any comments from the public regarding the development permit variants application for uh 294 296 Eltham Road and 242 Helmkin.

Anybody here?

Please uh come to the microphone.

And you can just start by uh stating your last name and uh what street you're on.

You don't have to give a street number.

Good evening.

My name is White.

I live on Eltham Road, and in fact, I'm one of the Ashley Gate townhouses that's going to be overlooking this project.

I fully understand that we need to increase the housing within our community.

And so we understand that these properties have to be built, but I have a couple of concerns.

At the moment, there are two huge big trees, which I assume will have to be taken down now because that does act as a bit of a screen for us.

I didn't know what else they were going to replant in place to help with some of that screening, as we'll be pretty close to the uh to the construction.

My other comment is that um uh as a resident of Ashley Gate, we go in and out of Eltham Road daily, many times.

We have a daughter that we have to take to school, and I work at the school.

And with the construction of the royal complex on the corner, a lot of the construction people have been using that road to park, and it is very congested now.

So, with the fact that this property is going to be built, I want to know from the town.

Um, are you going to be allowing parking on that street outside of the uh this new um units, these new units?

You very kindly um worked with us and also the um Lions Cove to get uh a no parking outside of our mailboxes, which is also opposite the fire hydrant, because one of our big concerns is getting a fire engine in through, and we have quite a narrow gateway for uh Ashley Gates and uh Lyons Cove.

And so uh, but I must admit there are times when we have to do a lot of jiggling around.

It's not very wide that road.

If we've got cars coming out and cars coming in, uh it is a challenge now.

So I don't know what it's going to be like when we have 20 units.

I know people don't always park in their garage, they try and find somewhere to park on the street.

And did you have more questions or was that the big one?

That's mostly the main ones.

Um I hadn't appreciated that there may be a no left-hand turn coming out of um Eltham Road because again our concern is all the traffic that's trying to come in and out of the Royal.

I think it's going to get quite congested around there and potentially an area that could possibly have accidents.

And also for the buses to pull into the bus stop too.

So it's going to get quite congested.

No thank you for your comments and um when you're complete we can ask staff if they've got a parking plan for specifically the construction I think you're worried about but ongoing what the parking plan is for for Eltham there.

If I'm reading you correctly.

Well that's correct because once once the um construction starts on this particular unit obviously they're going to need space to park all their construction uh vehicles um we do have um lions cove does have a back access but it's actually rocked off for Ashley Gate residents thank you okay thank you very much for your time cheers and I guess my next question I know Jeff we're early in the process but we can we take in uh Ms.

White's um comments particularly for parking for the parking plan.

Servicing agreement, right?

Yeah.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mary Thomas.

Um, I think in our servicing agreements we do ask uh builders to to uh provide a parking plan to us.

But I think it's as important because we've had lots of holes in the ground, uh, how the parking for construction workers in particular is affecting their areas.

Um and there's probably no parts of town that aren't affected because of the spillover for parking.

So um yeah, if there was a parking management plan that would avoid Eltham for at least the construction, because it it's not that big and there's not many spots there.

Yeah.

I haven't Thank you, Mayor Tobias.

Um the building bylaws is to place the construction parking plans required.

So that would trigger when building permit comes and staff review that to um make sure that wherever construct contractors are parked that it's uh done in a safe manner for all users at the road.

And uh I I know this uh Leanne was on your to-do list and that was um uh kind of a review of our our parking bylaws over the next little bit and um I I think it's very timely because not all of these units are gonna have a single car.

There's gonna be some units with maybe three cars in it by the time uh given our housing prices and um sunzoning big trucks that don't fit into garages.

Um I know for uh Canard Street it's it's full all the time and uh you know it's uh tumbleweeds during the day when everybody's at work but at night you can't you've got to park a block over pretty much and that's just from uh rentals and suites and and the amount of folks so yeah I uh Leanne my point is it will probably be timely now that we've got some more tangible examples of displacement and parking for that.

But if you want to add comment that'd be great.

Yeah through the mayor um in the 2025 2029 financial plan we will be looking at the parking in 2027 um after the completion of the OCP and we'll be bringing forward a zoning by law review which will include the parking thanks Leanne uh that helps a lot um any other comments from the public at all or you had a question Council McKenzie um just I I think it was a good point about the parking and just to say too I think the once the commercial space in the Royal uh opens that potentially there might be people parking on Altham as well to use that.

Um so that should be considered as well.

I think that maybe it's just residential parking there.

Thank you, uh Councilor McKenzie.

Uh Councilor Matson.

So um sorry, Councilor Rogers.

I know we're mic.

So anyway, um Steph, the um once Eltham is and I think the question um uh uh from the public was with respect to how many parking stalls will be in front of uh this development once it's completed.

So I I do see in front of the building there there's a short level space.

Uh can you give us some estimate of how many vehicles can park on the street once your development is complete?

We'll see if we can bring the plan up again.

Um big vehicles.

Go ahead, Leah.

Oh I mean this this is off-site um not offsite works that will be dealt with at the time of building permit, but one of the plans shows four parking spaces along that flat frontage.

Mayor Tobias, I believe almost the entire frontage is parking.

Okay, thank you.

Uh my my concern, I guess, uh adding on to Counselor Rogers' question and comment is that we're kind of struggling with cumulative effect here.

First, we've got uh kind of Ashley Gate that was a development.

There's certainly going to be guests that come there that there's not uh could be parking overflows uh during certain points of the year, and now we're adding on for adequacy.

Where and there's no parking on Helmkin, if I'm correct in saying that.

So where might a guest park, if this was full, um or something.

Where's the nearest point somebody could park?

Oh, I'm just gonna talk about on-site a little bit.

So uh the parking requirement is for current parking requirements is a one space per unit, and they're actually providing two.

Actually, um 18 of the units will have two parking spaces each in the garages, and two units will only have one uh parking space.

They're providing three visitor parking spaces as well.

Then perfect.

Thanks, Chen.

Um I think we're at comments from the public.

Are we done with comments from the public in here?

Anybody else got with a comment on this particular development?

I'm seeing none.

Uh Carl, we got any comments from the public on uh Eltham and Helmkin.

Mayor Tamias, we have no comments on this topic.

Okay.

Thanks.

So we've got um the comments and lots of questions and comments from the public and correspondence.

Um somebody want to move stack recommendation or modify it.

Move stack recommendations.

Moved by counselor uh Rogers and seconded by Councillor Brown.

Counselor Rogers, do you want to uh motivate?

Yes, we've um we've had a little many years, I think of quite a few years of looking at this project, and at first it was a couple of lots, and then um um the uh applicant went to great expense of acquiring the third lot at uh the request of the um the town uh to make a comprehensive development.

Um I I like the the look of the building.

So very conducive to families.

But I think they have a plan B and how to have egress out onto the street, and we can talk about that later.

So with that um hopeful uh avenue, um I'm in support of this application.

Thank you Counselor Rogers.

Counselor Brown I think that any other comments counselor Matson yeah I and I've never liked this project from day one and uh although the issues were density uh this is where it it really comes the chickens come home to roost in terms of the way this looks now given the density uh the aisles are too narrow the fact that it's 7.6 you know because you've got overhangs and you're going underneath um there's no particular green space on this site um the other projects had a two spaces where people could go on site there's nothing here this this this project has nothing would suggest to me that it's good for the residents or good for the community all it is is as many townhouses that could be stuck on a site have been put on there so I certainly can't support this and I would certainly not like to see this type of project go be spread out through our community all you have to do is compare what we saw before this and you can say is like why why would we support this it's not attractive there's no places for people to be on the site.

Um the roadways too narrow.

So, anyways, I can't support this, so I will be voting against it.

Thank you, Councillor Matson.

Any other comments, questions?

Seeing no other comments or questions, uh, we got a mover and a seconder to support staff's recommendation.

Yeah, left your mic on, Councilor Mattson.

Oh, sorry.

Roll.

Um all those in favor.

All those opposed.

So I guess the variance does not pass.

And I'll uh Councilor Qualowitz, did you have a vote on that one?

Uh I'm in the opposition.

Uh sorry, can you say again?

Uh were you in favor or not in favor?

In the opposition.

In opposition, okay.

I understand.

So counselor uh Qualitage, uh myself, uh Councilor Mattson and Councilor McKenzie were opposed to the um variance application.

Not sure where that leaves us, Jeff, but uh that's where it leaves us.

Uh for for me, I I mean I echo some of uh um councillor Matson's uh concerns, but I think uh my biggest one is benefit to the to the town, and I I think it was a struggle for council to get to the point where we approved the initial application, and then it just seems like the variances for me just put it over the edge that much more.

Um so again, just looking for benefit of the town.

Um so the motion does not pass.

Um councilor Rogers.

Yeah um no I I appreciate the vote.

Um I just am thinking of um in for uh the developer and for staff um if there can be more details and explanations as to um um why the the matter was uh defeated I think we owe it to the developer to be as concise and as constructive as possible in that regard uh I think they need to go back and do some homework and then come back to us uh counselor Rogers and I appreciate that, but I think the the uh vote was um to not support this.

Um but if any of the counselors would like to uh add what would make it attractive or or compromise, then uh now's the time to do it.

Council McKenzie.

Um last time this came to us as well, I I said something similar.

I with the royal being there, I think that corner is just now very dense.

Um it's just a big square.

The design of this proposal is again very rectangular.

Um I much preferred the previous uh um applications designs.

So for me, and and having the rooftop as the only outdoor recreational area for units um is is also an issue.

So I think it's really the design for me uh to make it less of a boxy boxy corner.

Thanks, Council McKenzie.

Anything uh you've already said a bit.

Do you want to add to that?

No, okay.

Um so uh yeah, from my perspective, it's probably the culmination of everything.

Uh wasn't completely supportive of it to begin with, mainly just because of of sheer density, lack of green space, as Councillor McKenzie and Councillor Mattson had alluded to.

Um and this is uh, you know, maximum profit for the owner and developer.

Uh and the benefit to the town is and the impact uh on existing um communities off of Altham Road uh as well as long term residence for Eltham Road uh it's nothing that we're really adding to the community except density and housing.

Uh so with that uh thanks uh uh Jeff for bringing that to us I think that comes to uh the development permit for variants for Highland Road.

Are you gonna handle that one as well, Jeff?

Yes, thank you, Mayor uh this is a um this is the proposal to construct a carport in the front yard of a rural property.

It is located in the environmental development permit area.

And a variance is also requested for the siting of the carport.

Sensitive terrestrial ecosystems development permit area.

Injury as a result of public fire wildland fires, and to balance development opportunities with ecological conservation.

There's a house already construction on being constructed on the site and um and this is kind of the the per the intent of this proposal is to put a sh carport over a uh a parking area in front of the building.

Just the way the zoning bylaw works it we do not permit accessory buildings in the front yard and the front yard is basically the um the where the front of the building is front of the building to the to the property line.

And in this case, the the building is quite sighted quite uh far back on the property uh uh sort of against sort of the another development permanent area to protect the uh pike lake, which is at the rear of the property.

Um this proposal can be supported with respect to the development permit guidelines because it is located in an area that was previously approved for parking, so there would be uh minimal disturbance to the site.

Uh they provided a uh wildfire assessment from a registered professional forester.

Um, and the proposal is to use uh fire-resistant metal roofing uh which will uh protect it from from fire.

Uh the as mentioned before, the carport is in a location that's was already previously designated for a for gravel as a gravel parking area.

It would just be kind of a pole shed um with just like a metal roof, metal covered roof with um with supported by columns.

It would not be visible from the road.

The the house itself is over 120 meters away and there's there's a bunch of uh there's uh forest land in the way um buffering the uh highland road which is a restricted access road anyways and um yeah and there are some hardships here because as shown in the diagram sort of the yight that's kind of the yellow uh areas on that map are the front yard and the of of this kind of oddly shaped property and uh to locate it behind the front of the building there would be additional um environmental impacts in terms of grading and tree removal and all that so this is kind of a logical location for it um so the recommendation is to um approve the development permit and um and which includes the variants to cite the accessory building in the front yard thanks Jeff uh before i go to questions just looking at your uh slide uh back one from the recommendation with the map on it yeah that that one there um it's got proposed resonance there has that been built out yet or is this from that original drawing for the building the the building is under construction right now and it has a building permit understood thank you um that makes it uh much clearer for me uh questions about this for Jeff Councilor Matson not allowed to build in a front yard but how big is their front yard uh the front this is a uh very large property actually like eight hectares I think uh so again the the house itself and it's actually this is kind of the uh the this front yard is over 120 meters deep any other questions, comments uh anybody like to move staff uh motion for that.

Oh sorry, sorry, we've got to uh we've got to go and uh seek uh comments from the public first and then uh don't there was no correspondence for this one, correct?

Any comments for the public on this application?

Anybody in the room?

Nobody?

Uh yeah, we can go.

Uh we can go there next.

Uh Carl, we got an thing from anybody online.

Mayor Tobias, we have no comments on this part of the evening.

Thank you.

Uh and is the applicant present any comments that you'd like to add or is that sum it up thank you um any questions from staff or move staff recommendation okay uh can we have a second councillor brown seconds uh all those in favor please any opposed seeing none opposed motion carry sex jeff one one and one tonight i think that brings us down to reconsideration for 12 Bickery road and remedial action.

And we'll just uh allow staff to get set up.

Councilor Brown.

Yeah, due to apprehension of appearance of bias, I'm going to recuse myself this item at 8 uh 34 p.m.

If someone could note that at the minutes, please.

Thank you, Councillor Brown.

We'll uh send somebody for you when we're complete.

And after such time we'll hear from the property owner as well.

Yeah.

Uh good evening, Mayor and Council.

Um just gonna chat about uh 12 Vickery again for the uh purpose of reconsideration.

So um nothing has really changed since the last meeting we had, so I'll just be giving a briefing of uh what we went over last time.

So uh purpose to inform council of a residential property located at 12 Vickery Road with non-permitted construction in contravention of the BC Building Code and the town of V Rose Building By Law.

Request that council impose the remedial action requirements in relations to sections 72 through 80 and sections 17 and 258 of the community charter.

Background subject properties two stories, single family dwelling.

Um November 19th of 2024, we passed a motion to file a community charter, section 57 Notice on property Title.

On November 26th, it was filed with the land title and survey authority of BC.

Um the town received confirmation that the section 57 was registered against title.

Just an analysis on it.

Numerous violations of the BC Building Code and Town of URL's building bylaw.

Structural deficiencies identified during multiple failed inspections, including framing, sheathing, and rainscreen.

Owner has repeatedly failed to address deficiencies noted by the engineer of record and third party reviews.

Stop work order removed.

Unsafe to occupy notice ignored and unauthorized construction continued by owner.

The analysis, unsafe building conditions, pose a potential hazard to occupants and the public.

Owner's unwillingness to resolve deficiencies despite multiple opportunities and reminders by engineer of record and staff.

The town is obligated to enforce compliance with town bylaws and uphold public safety and building standards in accordance with the BC Building Code.

And again, these are the same slides we used last time.

So just as a reminder, the picture on the left was uh when roughly about the time when we were called for the sheathing and rain screen inspection, um, which was canceled.

Um, the picture on the right was is the current state roughly this year of the project.

Um the picture here is just talking about the requirements um to cover uh building wrap in a timely manner.

Um, the two types used is DuPont and the other one is a Nova wrap.

This picture here, um, so just highlighted from the BC building code.

Uh issues with top plates.

Um, generally there's two top plates, not four or five in this one.

Um, and then just notes from the engineers' plans, uh, just mentioning the requirement for two top plates.

This picture here um just talks about protection from dampness.

So uh unfinished.

Um, if you look at the bottom there, you've got uh the beam sitting on direct concrete.

So wood is never to be sitting on concrete.

There's always supposed to be a uh barrier.

Uh this one here talks about built-up wood beams uh and what's required on them.

There's quarter points that go into the design and spacing of the joints.

So in this picture here, you see just a I don't know, six to eight inch block that's just filling a space.

It's not bearing on anything, it's actually not doing anything.

This picture here, it's a little bit hard to see.

Uh wood columns are to be full members from uh support to uh whatever they are supporting.

So hard to see in this one.

There is a shim at the top of it.

Um site, there's numerous occasions of uh built-up wood columns like this.

Uh this one here is just talking about supportive walls.

So this one is is overlapped the uh wall plate.

Uh again, I'll talk about engineered plans.

Uh shear walls plywood dimensions supposed to be full size, four by eight sheets used as often as you can.

Obviously, there's some pieces that will uh not be full sheets.

Um the nailing patterns generally engineers require uh three-inch uh nailing on the edges.

Um, they usually call for six in the field.

12 is also acceptable.

Um, this picture just highlights just not all full pieces of sheathing to be used.

This one, this one is also talking about the studs on the sides of openings.

They're to be full length as well.

Um, from the bottom plate of that sheathing to the underside of the lintel above.

Um, both of these have a top plate separating the lintels coming up or the lintel from the uh jack stud.

Um on the left, it's pieced together.

Um, same with the windowsill creates two crush points for uh sagging of the house, and on the left, it's just one piece, but it's uh sandwiched between two horizontal plates again, uh possibly creating crash and sagging points.

Uh notching of framing members, so there's limits to how much you can go and from what direction of the joist.

So uh this one is clearly a lot more than acceptable, and then the one on the right is an engineered LVL.

And I've just put in the uh structural engineered plans timber notes on the bottom right.

No notching of beams or joist unless specifically detailed or noted.

Um when I review the plans, I don't see any notes to that one there.

Uh again, what I witnessed was all the floor joists were in with uh joist hangers, which is common.

Um, but again, with Simpson joist hangers, the they have on their website, which I've included on the left, uh, what they have accepted and approved for nailing that off.

And that will be uh all to do with shear strength.

So what's in the image you see here is three-inch deck screws, they have no shear strength so the council motion um the remedial action process as outlined in sections 72 through 80 as well as sections 17 and 258 of the community charter uh be initiated and that such remedial action process include the following declarations and resolutions um the building on the property with a civic address 12 Vickery Road and a legal description I won't get into that part uh creates an unsafe condition in that the building fails to comply with sections 5.1 and the following sections of the Town of Uroyal's building by law and the British Columbia Building Code.

Two, the owner, John Becker has 60 days following receipt of council's motion to submit a complete new building permit application for the building with the required documents listed within the attached building permit application and plumbing permit application, collectively the building permit application.

Three, if the town of U Royal receives a complete building permit application for the building within 60 days following receipt of council's motion, the owner has 180 days from the date of receipt of building permit issuance to correct all deficiencies listed by the engineer of record, provide town staff with the approved field reports of the engineer of record, and schedule C B letter of assurance and arrange for and pass town inspections.

And for town staff must report back to council about issuance of an occupancy permit following the 180-day deadline imposed on the owner to bring their structure into compliance with the BC building code and the town's building bylaw.

Um so I've just created a small chart that I'll go over with um kind of differentiates.

So if you if you were to build a part nine house, which does not require an engineer, and then on the right is a part nine house that did require an engineer, what the stages would look like.

So pre application stage, uh check if permit is required, review zone and consult with municipality, gather required documents.

Um for one with an engineer, it's the same, but also consult with the structural engineer.

So you'd be looking to hire one application, submit all required documents listed on the application form, site plans, architectural drawings, etc.

Pay the fees.

For one with an engineer, submit all required documents listed on the application.

The added is uh engineered stamp drawings and letters of assurance.

So the engineer provides a schedule B.

This he's he's saying that he's taken on the job, he's designed the plans, he will follow through with it with field reviews and make sure everything's designed to his calculations and design.

Plan review um gets the application comes in reviewed by our four departments in the town.

Um for one with an engineer, there also be stamp drawings that we will review.

Uh permit issuance.

If it's met all requirements, it's issued, and that goes for both.

Um construction and inspections.

So single family dwelling without an engineer.

Um key stages, and this is just a quick general uh foundation footing forms, under slab, plumbing, roughen, framing, insulation, vapor barrier, final occupancy.

The difference being um when you have a house with an engineer, um, as I've mentioned before, our our we work kind of complementary to each other.

He's out there to inspect what he's designed and and that it's adequate.

I'm out there to inspect code compliance.

Um, generally, we take in his field review.

So if it's in this case for a framing review, engineer submits a field review saying framing is met, and I go out once I've been asked for a framing inspection and then just double over on it.

Uh I look at the code stuff.

He is he is as well, but he's also looking at his specific designs.

Um generally we don't go out until after it because if I was to approve it, I can't really um approve it for him.

So I could approve it based on something, but he knows his design.

So if it's not approved by him, I can't really trump him in that one.

Uh so that's that's why we go after the fact.

Um so and then we go into final approval and occupancy.

So we'll ask the um applicant asks for a final inspection.

We go through if everything's good, um, we get the supporting documents saying everything is good that we require.

With the engineer, it's basically the same thing.

The engineer will give us letters of assurance, which will be a schedule C B, which means everything's been designed as planned.

And he's taken on that liability saying it's everything is good.

Because again, when the engineer is involved, it's outside the scope of the building code.

So that's why we need that as well before we can issue occupancy.

If we were to not have something like that, um I wouldn't be able to confirm that it was safe for someone to go into.

So once everything's done, permits closed, occupancy granted.

Um, and then so the final one is permit close.

Uh, same thing I've just listed here, permit closed after municipal and engineering uh approvals.

So they'll give me the schedule, I'll get the documents required, and we're good to go.

Um, so in in just conclusion, and what I've added here, and it's just to kind of highlight uh points um more for uh I'll just I'll just get into it.

So View Royals building bylaw.

Um, before we had the change, we had the the older bylaw, which didn't really have an end to end date for um building permits, it kind of was a yearly base, then we could keep renewing it.

When we issued the new building bylaw, um in November of 2023, everyone with a permit was notified that we were gonna have the new building bylaw come out.

And um if you were already in um in a in a permit that was ongoing, once that expired, you'd have one more year to um extend that permit, and then after that it would be a new building permit altogether.

Um, so everyone that had a an existing permit was mailed out with that information.

Um, the feedback we didn't really have any issues with.

Everyone up until then met that time.

I mean, it was most of them had about a year remaining and then had another year after that.

So we're now in 2025.

Um so for this permit, it expired in 2024.

We're now in 20225, and the building's been left without a permit active.

So in the building bylaw under part six permit conditions, it states that's the full responsibility of the owner to carry out and verify all work under the issued permit, and that it complies with the BC Building Code, the building bylaw of V Royal, and all applicable code standards and enactments, and those vary throughout different municipalities and areas.

Moving on, you go to the BC building code.

So in part two, the application requires engineer for part nine buildings not within scope of part nine division B.

So anything that comes out of that goes outside of the part nine.

So any builder could put in a set of plans, design his plans from part nine.

If you were to go outside of those limits, you and you hire an engineer, you get a set of drawings with them.

So that's the difference there.

Um in the BC building code as well, it states owner's responsibility is to provide authority having jurisdiction, which in this case would be the building inspector, letters of assurance, which we've talked about.

So the schedule C B before receiving permission to occupy a building.

I've just listed the high um the relevant ones.

Contravention of A municipal bylaw, so our building bylaw, we're in contravention of that.

B provincial building regulation, that would be the BC building code.

We're in contravention of that.

The town is not insulated from liability of a community charter section 57 notice.

So we did place that.

It doesn't cover the town.

The town should seek to enforce compliance with the BC Building Code and building bylaw.

So what we've done and what we're hoping for is that within the 60 days, we can have a set a permit come in with a set of structural engineered plans, and there would be an engineer with it to carry on the build.

That's what we're hoping for here.

So again, in the community charter, section 73, hazardous conditions permits council to impose remedial action in relation to A, a building or other structure, an erection of any kind, or similar matter of that thing that contravenes the provincial building regulations, the BC Building Code again, or a bylaw, our building bylaw.

Both of those are contravened.

So that's that's it for this for the uh report on that.

So what I would like to just say is the applicant is fully responsible to prove to us during the course of the build that A, he will meet the times that are given in the in our building bylaw.

So the old building bylaw, like I said, it was one one year.

You come and renew, one year come and renew.

We updated the building bylaw, we gave two years maximum for it.

Um, but during that, if you had an ongoing permit, uh we notified you that you'd have one more year after that.

That year came and went.

So that's in this case, that's what happened.

Um, the permits expired.

It was was not up for renewal.

Um, so now we're over a year of a uh expired permit on this build.

Um so from the municipal standpoint, we don't have our legislation is to follow what's there for safe practices.

We have a building bylaw to enforce building practices, which is the BC Building Code.

The building bylaw has been in contravention on this property.

The BC building code is in contravention on this property.

We currently don't have a permit right now, so the building is sitting unsafe without an occupancy.

Um legislation would tell us to put a notice on title, which we have done, but that doesn't protect us from liability issues.

The next step is remedial action, which would be to remove the hazard.

And what we are asking for is cooperation and giving time, which you've asked for 60 days, to apply for a new permit and follow the procedure that every single person is adhered to.