275 Kerwood St. Build Compliance/Issues

Objectives

• Provide brief review (i.e. approved variance, recent timeline of activities)
• Review current status vis-à-vis approved variance/DP
• Discuss impact on adjacent property, potential compliance issues identified, and the path forward (action items/next steps)

Timeline

Development progress at 275 Kerwood St.

• April 6: Variance approved.
• August 3: BG submits letter to Town with questions regarding the construction bc it seems oversized/cumbersome. Is it in compliance? Has another variance been granted? (NO response from Town)
• August 17: Fill begins being placed behind concrete retaining walls. BG sends JR an email asking for confirmation that all activity is in compliance.
• August 18: JR sends email to BG indicating:
  • CAO advised that staff followed up and structure is compliant with Council’s approved drawings
  • Mayor suggests waiting for finished results, “not much recourse based on staff’s investigation”
• August 23: KS meets with JR on site at 279 Kerwood. JR exchanges info and photos with Mayor.
• August 25: Mayor sends email to BS indicating, “I gather that there is still ongoing staff involvement in this process and the wall in question will be adjusted.”

Key: BG, Barry Saladana; CAO, Chief Administrative Officer; JR, John Rogers; KS, Kim Saladana

Staff recommendation and approved variance, April 6, 2021

• Variance to the prohibition on retaining wall constructed within the setback from the natural boundary to the sea.
• Variance to the setback for the boathouse, ramp and float structures from 15m to 0m.
• Variance to the maximum height of a retaining wall from 1.2m to 1.52m. (Note: Earlier application proposed 2.5m walls)

Alternative recommendation offered to Council on April 6: Council could consider the approval of the retaining walls and ramp and float but not the boathouse; the recommendation would be written as such:

• Variance to the prohibition on retaining wall constructed within the setback from the natural boundary to the sea.
• Variance to the setback for the ramp and float structures from 15m to 0m.
• Variance to the maximum height of a retaining wall from 1.2m to 1.52m.

This alternative recommendation removes the Boathouse from the second bullet point.

Staff report included…

Staff recommended, and Council approved variances despite the following comments from Staff:

Impact on Use and Enjoyment of Neighbouring Properties

“The issue remains that, with the boathouse existing in its current location, the significant massing of overall development in the setback area is not something that staff supports in the context of the Town’s shoreline OCP goals or the enjoyment of the shoreline for neighbouring properties”

Impact on the environment:

“The foreshore structures prior to the non-permitted work were in very poor shape. It was unsafe to walk on and in them. The property has also needed a retaining wall to prevent further slumping of the slope behind the boathouse. Staff does not believe that the application will have a significant negative impact on the natural environment, and the retaining wall to prevent the slumping of the uplands is likely to be of benefit.”

The applicant provided reassurance to Council and addressed articles included in the guidelines….

• Development of riparian and shoreline areas should be limited and not negatively impact the ecological health of the immediate area or impede public access. Ecological health of the shoreline will be enhanced by native plantings and the placement of boulders to provide habitat and shelter areas for wildlife. Public access will not be impeded. (pg 31, para 6)
• The proposed landscape plan will provide a net increase to native vegetation (pg 32, para 1)
• The proposed landscape plan will protect and enhance existing vegetation. (pg 31, para 7)
• In the design of new developments or re-development, the use of soft engineered and innovative alternatives to stabilizing shorelines and preventing erosion, such as bioengineering rather than traditional hard engineered measures should be used…..Hard measures refer to those with solid, hard surfaces, such as concrete bulkheads, while "soft" structural measures rely on less rigid materials, such as biotechnical vegetation measures or beach enhancement. (pg 32, para 5)
• Where hard measures can conclusively be shown to be the only means of effectively preventing erosion, they should be designed in consultation with a registered professional biologist, qualified environmental professionals and professional engineers, as appropriate. None are planned. (pg 33, para 2)

The Environmental Review by FKW provided additional reassurances and concluded...

“In summary, the proposed work will not disturb any rare or endangered species or ecosystems. Provided the measures and BMPs described in this review are followed, the proposed construction activities are not expected to have significant negative impacts to the current ecosystems of the 15m DPA setback from Esquimalt Harbour. If implemented, the suggested restoration activities would provide improvement over the current conditions for this coastal bedrock bluff, in particular for songbirds.”

Ryzuk Geotechnical Survey (Oct. 2019) stated....

As shown on the conceptual plans, the proposed landscaping would comprise a concrete staircase with an adjacent retaining wall being less than 2.5 m high, as well as small terraces of boulders/concrete walls, and interspaced planting areas. Based on our previous site reconnaissance, bedrock is known to be present along the shore and is expected to be relatively shallow within the area. We also note that fills were present within the slope and very stiff to hard native clay soils may be encountered.

“...bedrock is known to be present along the shore and is expected to be relatively shallow within the area. We also note that fills were present within the slope and very stiff to hard native clay soils may be encountered....”

Rendering of the plan Council approved

Annotations from rendering:

• “The applicant has updated the perspective renderings to include illustration of the open face wooden stairs associated with the landscaping.”
• “The applicant has indicated that there will be no bare soil in any of the locations indicated in the perspective renderings; this was for retaining wall illustration only.”
• “According to plan it will be a “wildflower seed mix” supplied by Saanich native plants”
• “Preserve native species. Relocated native species. Infill w/. cuttings and 21 cm pot matching native species where cuttings not applicable.”
• Variance to the maximum height of a retaining wall from 1.2m to 1.52m (3.9ft to 5ft)

Site Plan Diagram

Current Status

Annotations from photo:

• Retaining wall is >10ft tall (>1.52m/5ft is the approved variance)
• What is the plan here? The retaining wall rises 5ft above the TOP of adjacent fence....

Construction and Fill Issues

Annotations from collage:

• This is a preservation area?
• Some fill has now been placed. What’s below that fill?

• Water, electrical and sewage conduits are in place and partially covered by fill.
• PROHIBITED. Communicated by DND and mentioned in earlier reports by Staff to Council
• Adding sewage greatly expands the scope of use for the boathouse (i.e. small secondary suite, Air BnB, guest house, etc.)

• Conduits running through retaining wall and leading to the boathouse.

Boathouse Specifications

Private docks and associated structures should:

• “Be allowed small storage structures/benches upon a ramp/float for the storage of safety gear, fenders etc. up to 1.2m high.”

Staff report about boathouse:

• “While the applicant retains their opinion that the boathouse is lawfully non-conforming, it is now being included in the application. The proposal removes the ‘wings’ and leaves a smaller, more square structure measuring 4.8m wide and 5.3m deep (15.7’ x 17.3’). The boathouse drawings in the landscape/site plan and renderings have been updated to reflect its proposed size (272sq/ft).”

Historical Review of the Boathouse

Development Progress

Requests/Action Items

• Stringent oversight of site development moving forward such that it conforms 100% to the approved variances and DP
• Current compliance issues are corrected promptly, to the specifications of the approved DP, and additional issues are avoided
• Meet with affected neighbours on site to explain:
  • What elements of the current construction are not compliant with the approved DP
  • What steps will be taken to ensure the development at 275 Kerwood will be brought into compliance with the approved DP
  • What steps will be taken, if needed, to mitigate risks to adjacent properties