Quote:
Originally Posted by Traum
Actually, my comment about the OCP being pretty black and white is incorrect. They are only guidelines, and city council is generally pretty reluctant to allow individual cases to violate them because a LOT of work -- community consultations, in particular -- is done to come up with those guidelines. Allowing for exceptions would also be the equivalent of City Council eating their own words, rendering the OCP meaningless, and compromising City Council's credibility. But people and developers can apply for exemptions to meet those OCP guidelines, and the municipal gov has the authority to grant those exceptions. In the cases of big, influential developers, they can (and will) lobby the municipal gov to either give them the exemption, or to amend those gudielines to allow for the build that they are seeking.
Case in point -- CoV under Mayor Sim has amended our municipal view cone guidelines to allow for high rises that would block some of our North Shore mountain views. People in the neighbourhood are up in arms about it, but Sim has gone ahead with it anyway.
But in the case of the Global News story, West Van has every legal argument and authority on their side to tell the home owner to pound sand (and tear the addition down). Or they can come up with whatever BS reasons they want to grant the exception / waive the requirement to meet the OCP watercourse protection guidelines.
|
The area in question is subject to the Riparian Areas Protection Regulation (RAPR), which falls under provincial jurisdiction. Consequently, the City would note the Watercourse or Environmental Development Permit in their OCP to ensure that the property owner has obtained provincial approval based on the recommendations of a qualified environmental professional.
Most City's would only require a building permit for a laneway house.
In this case, no Watercourse DP = No Building Permit.
MY guess is the City would register a lien on Title to their property if they continue to not comply with the orders.