NATURE

Sea, land, river

PEOPLES

Community

For earlier materials see Table of Contents

July 31^st	Another look at Council mtg
	Intricacies of Don’t block my view

Council Chambers filled mostly with Graham Avenue residents worried about a potential subdivision ---

Discussion (as opposed to gripes’) centered on lot size and ‘panhandle lots’

Note trees etc on front of 2130 lot that presently block views --- plus how limited the problem as mainly about 4-6 houses views in question

Been Here before

This same issue came up at January 28^th 2008 meeting when again similar group addressed council on potential sub-division --- and were assured since it was a ‘panhandle lot’ would have to come back to Council for ‘Variance’

Image left is from Engineering – shows property lines (unofficially)

Technicalities of Panhandle

As it was explained to me --- Subdivision officer would consult provincial manual --- and one of criteria in Local Government Act Section 944 is that at least 10% of lot must be on the ‘highway’ – if not then ‘panhandle’ triggers another process – which can vary with municipality --- could be either a decision of the sub-division officer – Or come to Council for approval

Similar logic for lots in ‘cul de sacs’ where perimeter often exceeds frontage --- see left where ‘101’ got around problem by facing house on side street instead of Graham ---- but more apropos see the Edwards Street subdivision where needed Council to accept lots on ‘cul de sac’

Feb 2007 Council when Edward’s St property sold

March 12^th 2007 when Edward St developers came to Council with plan

And here is October 2007 when ‘noticed’ cul de sac’ lot needed ’permission’ – note wanted to leave to approving officer in future

Views often provoke controversies

Now how did all those trees blocking the harbour view ‘disappear’?

Here is another example from Rushbrook Trail – where cutting trees on slope to get views potentially caused huge slides

And this even more dramatic one from 2007

The preferred route?

I am told that the funding has already been sought – as closing dates already passed

Two men form Rod & Gun club spoke at Council meeting suggesting the club could lose its certification if a trail put along its lower perimeter where bullets might ricochet

SQCRD Open House for Trails input

	We won’t Pay
	But also a good discussion of short comings too – (or hide it in our SQCRD requisition)

Good analysis from Engineering

Bikes a problem

	What’s it going to be?
	Talk about watering lawns—these guys watered their concrete 3 days running

House Cleaning Rupert Style

True the house was in bad shape – and there were kids too – along with the reported lice and flees left behind

But just chucking the stuff out the front door – (and this is 3^rd Avenue) hardly seems like a rational decision --- we’ll see how long it takes to get cleaned up

DPA and parking

I will come back to this over the week-end --- at some level it makes sense for the City to require new buildings to provide parking for tenants – and customers – as at left

But at another level it is like requiring horse tie ups in front of premise – an anachronism in a day when trying to reduce our gas guzzling footprint is the future – more later

Created by LG on 31/7/2009

Last updated on Friday, July 31, 2009

NATURE

PEOPLES

For earlier materials see Table of Contents

Another look at Council mtg

DPA and parking