News item: Oak Bay home too modern for neighbours' tastes

[aastra]

So what's really the issue with this modern box home controversy in Oak Bay? (Is that the correct term? Box home?)

People don't object to the presence of a modern box home here or there, right?

Rather, people worry about the possibility that modern box homes might end up being a prevailing/defining form in the not-too-distant future? As diverse as Oak Bay's housing stock is, these modern box homes may end up being overrepresented? One such house per every couple of blocks would be fine, but two or three such houses per every block would be terrible? Just too much?

Is that a good summation of things?

[aastra]

Case in point: what do we think of this?
http://rainbowhill.ca/rainbow_homes.php

Or this?
http://rainbowhill.ca/index.php

[Baro]

I like the first picture but the 2nd looks like suburban hell.

[Holden West]

On the news, the guy was not railing against the design as much as he was about the relative size, or what's called the floor space ratio--the ratio between the volume of the house and the plot of land it sits on.

That has to be his only concern. These modern homes are almost exclusively found in Oak Bay. The "traditional" mish-mash home is found in every municipality.

[aastra]

I like the first picture, too. It looks really good. But it's also an altogether new neighbourhood. For a new neighbourhood, that's actually a decent amount of architectural variety. But what if an old street in an established neighbourhood eventually transformed into something like that?

The repetition in the second picture is just too much for me. The design isn't the problem. The design is fine. It's the repetition of the same (or highly similar) design that's the problem. Methinks it would be much improved if even just two of the buildings were different and the other five remained exactly as they are.

[aastra]

...the ratio between the volume of the house and the plot of land it sits on.

So are these new houses really building out the lots?

[rjag]

I live in North Oak Bay and my house is zoned RS4. It is approx 1500 ft on the main floor and 1300 in the full height basement.

Our lot is a little over 8,000ft and we have a deck of about 250 ft. I would like to enclose our double carport, but to do this I need to extend my roofline by about 4 ft to be able to accomodate a car and bikes etc. This brings site coverage to just about 28%, (my neighbours on either side have about 30%) {our roofline has 2' eaves all around and this counts towards site coverage}

Oak Bay will not allow this, they will not even entertain a variance as it is part of the non-variable site coverage which restricts structures to 25% unless your garage is detached or is at right angles to the street (and then you are allowed 30%)....I am in contact with a councillor currently to find out what we can do as we have some expoensive cars and bikes and gardening equipment that we would like to protect.

The extension would occupy 4 ft of our driveway and not affect any part of our garden etc...yet it appears we are out of luck.

What amazes me is that people can apply for variances to get to zero lot line or have added height etc but we cannot apply to have a variance to bring us close to what our neighbours on both sides of us have.

For the record these houses were all built in the early '60's.

I just simply shake my head at the stupidity of all this stuff as saanich I believe allows up to 60% (OB Building Inspector told me, please correct me if I'm wrong as I think he was pulling my chain)

[sebberry]

Isn't it all just a bit too petty?

[Sparky]

In fairness Seb rjag has a point.

Unfortunately that point is buried in municipal bylaws.

rjag, after reading your post, I would suggest hiring an engineer or architect that is familiar with working with the municipality and worthy of his salt.

It's you against the rules.....take the rule to task.

[Bob Fugger]

Or just build it without permits. You tried being reasonable. Local government again proves that it is easier to beg forgiveness than ask permission.

[sdwright.vic]

I guess its all a matter of price point. Their all all kind of homes in the uplands. It must be a price point and a annual salary that you do not care about this stuff anymore?

[VicHockeyFan]

Originally Posted by rjag

I live in North Oak Bay and my house is zoned RS4. It is approx 1500 ft on the main floor and 1300 in the full height basement.

Our lot is a little over 8,000ft and we have a deck of about 250 ft. I would like to enclose our double carport, but to do this I need to extend my roofline by about 4 ft to be able to accomodate a car and bikes etc. This brings site coverage to just about 28%, (my neighbours on either side have about 30%) {our roofline has 2' eaves all around and this counts towards site coverage}

Oak Bay will not allow this, they will not even entertain a variance as it is part of the non-variable site coverage which restricts structures to 25% unless your garage is detached or is at right angles to the street (and then you are allowed 30%)....I am in contact with a councillor currently to find out what we can do as we have some expoensive cars and bikes and gardening equipment that we would like to protect.

The extension would occupy 4 ft of our driveway and not affect any part of our garden etc...yet it appears we are out of luck.

What amazes me is that people can apply for variances to get to zero lot line or have added height etc but we cannot apply to have a variance to bring us close to what our neighbours on both sides of us have.

For the record these houses were all built in the early '60's.

I just simply shake my head at the stupidity of all this stuff as saanich I believe allows up to 60% (OB Building Inspector told me, please correct me if I'm wrong as I think he was pulling my chain)

Why did you buy this house when you knew (or should have known) that you could not get a variance?

I don't have a lot of sympathy, unless somehow the rules were changed, or you were mislead before you bought the home. You can't find another place for the gardening equipment and/or bikes?

[rjag]

Originally Posted by VicHockeyFan

Why did you buy this house when you knew (or should have known) that you could not get a variance?

I don't have a lot of sympathy, unless somehow the rules were changed, or you were mislead before you bought the home. You can't find another place for the gardening equipment and/or bikes?

Well your comment is simple justification as to why you would never do well on a board of variance or any group of similar value. Pretty judgmental arent you?

First off, not looking for sympathy, secondly, I bought the house in 1998 so have been there for a few years. Lot coverages were not an issue at that time and variance applications were considered, but became an issue when a monster house was put up on Mid-downe about 8-10 years ago, then it was a typical extreme reaction to slam the door after the horse bolted.

We had a carport in place and it was always on my wishlist to extend and enclose it. However as with anything in life there is a list of priorities and this ranked fairly low compared to raising kids and paying off our mortgage.

My post was in regards to the subject of this thread.

Thank you yet again for your thoughtful and enlightening comments, this forum would be so boring if it wasnt for your witty, non-judgmental, presumptuous contributions.

[VicHockeyFan]

This is what you said:

Oak Bay will not allow this, they will not even entertain a variance as it is part of the non-variable site coverage

Now, if that was not the case in 1998, then you have some reason to be upset.

But also, some people think that variances are something to be granted in all but extreme cases, and that was never what they were intended for. Yes, over the years they became routine, but in the olden days, you had to show a great need, and reasons you would suffer without it being granted. Most people might think expensive cars and gardening equipment storage is not showing any type of hardship.

Some people might also think that you could find a more expensive solution to your storage needs (like pushing the area of the carport 4' further into the house). That way you pay for a solution that falls within current regulations.

[PulpVictor]

Originally Posted by Bob Fugger

Or just build it without permits. You tried being reasonable. Local government again proves that it is easier to beg forgiveness than ask permission.

And then the Oak Bay Watchers come over, and because you have built without a permit, they report you and make you tear it down. Here is another good one: there is a self proclaimed watchdog group in Metchosin (all about secondary suites) that will send their own little group around to every property to make sure that there is compliance with the new bylaw. This is getting scary.

[sebberry]

Like I said, it's all getting way too petty. And I thought condo council's were bad. Are people's lives so empty that they need to resort to this?

Rjag, good luck with the garage. It's a good example of how a cookie cutter regulation doesn't always work in every situation.

[rjag]

I am taking them to task on this. What OB current rules are regarding site coverage is 25% of the lot size is the max footprint for the main dwelling. You can add another 5% as an 'accessory' structure but it must not be closer than 10' from the principle building.

The quote "non-variable density regulations" regarding lot coverage is only located on the OCP and I have asked for them to produce these regulations for review.

But you can go to 30% if the garage is attached but perpendicular to the street.

When our home was constructed in the early 60's you were allowed 35%, however that has been changed and you cant grandfather the rule unless its pre-existing and then it becomes non-conforming.

[PulpVictor]

It's all very petty. The Metchosin guy is some self-proclaimed educator and environmentalist that just thinks development is bad (from Ontario, btw). The lunatics are running the asylum.

[Bob Fugger]

Originally Posted by PulpVictor

It's all very petty. The Metchosin guy is some self-proclaimed educator and environmentalist that just thinks development is bad (from Ontario, btw). The lunatics are running the asylum.

That's hilarious - a "self-proclaimed educator and environmentalist" who is against the resulting density of secondary suites!

[Mike K.]

I wonder if the Metchosin fellow is the same one who was featured on local news stories speaking against Olympic View Golf's plans to build towers on the property in Colwood.

[VicHockeyFan]

Originally Posted by Mike K.

I wonder if the Metchosin fellow is the same one who was featured on local news stories speaking against Olympic View Golf's plans to build towers on the property in Colwood.

But maybe you can't have it both ways. When munis don't think regionally, we give them heck, so when a homeowner on one side of the street talks about land use on the other side of the street, that happens to be another muni, should we say "mind your own business?"

[PulpVictor]

Originally Posted by Bob Fugger

That's hilarious - a "self-proclaimed educator and environmentalist" who is against the resulting density of secondary suites!

He has been quoted as saying that increased population increases green house gasses. The group is call the APRM (Alliance for the Preservation of Rural Metchosin). They pretty much determined the last election...

The minimum lot for upland development is 10 acres. They finally approved secondary suites, but they restricted the size to about 730 s.f, and they must share a driveway and be 50 feet or less away from the primary residence. Of course, someone with 10 acres doesn't want a tenant 50 feet away. It is all just stupid.

This guy (Derek Wulff, from Ontario) has himself a much smaller lot. I want to ask him if anyone developed his property, and is he rather glad someone did?

Welcome to BC, but CTDBY: close the door behind you.

[gumgum]

Excuse me for asking but why is so neccesary to remind everyone repeatedly that this guy is from Ontario? There are people with misguided points-of-view everywhere.

[G-Man]

^ I don't think it is Ontario specifically (I am from Ontario too for that matter) it is the idea that when you move anywhere that it needs to be preserved the way it is when you arrived. Same as the person before and the person after.

[PulpVictor]

Originally Posted by G-Man

^ I don't think it is Ontario specifically (I am from Ontario too for that matter) it is the idea that when you move anywhere that it needs to be preserved the way it is when you arrived. Same as the person before and the person after.

Indeed. And I am sorry that I repeated Ontario so often.

Imagine coming from say, Hamilton or Sudbury and seeing this Island for the first time. Or from Flin Flon (where I was born, lol). The weather alone makes it paradise in comparison.