Castanet

No reason for any kid in that neighbourhood to walk down the middle of the street.

just clarify for those who cant read between the lines, not the middle of the street but the middle of the lane.

traffic and parking is relevant, check your sources Fancy

I cant see DWK allowing more traffic on an already busy street with blind corners at the intersection.

It's a side street and the house in question has ample off street parking. That street cannot be compared to Shannon Ridge Drive the school backs on that has more traffic. The parents dropping off and picking up is short term twice a day. Still can't see it enough of a reason to deny the application.

Well, I am not surprised that this issue has made the press.

The recent approach that council has taken toward secondary suites to remove owner occupancy (not all of them, I believe Carol Zanon Rick DeJong voted against this change) is a slap in the face to all residents of West Kelowna.

Three to four years ago the rezoning application requirement was removed, thereby eliminating the requirement for a public hearing and the opportunity for members of the public to speak to changes that were proposed in their neighborhoods. At that time I fought to implement a home owner occupancy requirement in order to retain some kind of accountability and to retain that sense of "single family" zoning that most of us would like to remain in our neighborhoods.

Now with the owner occupancy AND the public hearings out of the way there is no longer, in my opinion, any such thing as a single family neighborhood. This is short sighted and wrong (again my opinion).

If any of those Councilors and the current Mayor that voted in favor of this change had the house next door, or across the street turned into a duplex (which is what a house with a suite down and the upstairs rented out is - call a spade a spade) with several cars, unkept yards, etc. I wonder if they would change their tune. I am not saying all renters are messy, but NO ONE is going to take care of a property that they don't own as well as an owner that is part of a street, part of a community, part of a neighborhood and faces their friends and neighbors daily.

Sure, sure we all want affordable housing and need to create more housing options and make it easier and less expensive etc., but not one single suite application that came before council in my day was offered at a rent that was anywhere near what I would call affordable. If that is TRULY council's concern then allow all homes to have a suite in their house for the original purpose - back in the day it was for Grandparents or your adult children to live somewhat independently, save some money, go to college, what ever. No license fees, no extra garbage fees, no extra water fees (which all get passed on to the renter anyway).

What this council has done will change this community in a negative way, there will continue to be more illegal suites than legal ones, and your single family neighborhood is gone for ever - Way to Go. This application on this post will be approved, mark my words, as will ALL applications that come forward, unless they are next door to Findlater, Milsom, Knowles (he lives in a gated community with RULES) or Ophus's house.

Good Luck
Rosalind Neis

Once a precedent is set, it will be hard to ignore in the future. I'm surprised there are only 21 signatures on a petition against this with hundreds living in the vicinity.

Fancy wrote:Once a precedent is set, it will be hard to ignore in the future. I'm surprised there are only 21 signatures on a petition against this with hundreds living in the vicinity.

There is no doubt that some residences are scared to to say anything, sign a petition,written submission or attend the hearing and understandably so considering the activity that goes on at the applicants property.

Fancy you are Incorrect there are not hundreds living in the area have a look at the map of the affected area I posted earlier. Approximately 70 residences affected. One of them in fact is the Shannon lake elementary school *because its not on the same street does not exclude the school from the affected area.

Council will need to decide what precedent is set which could be a number of reasons, however If approved I will not be voting for those in favor at the next election. I'm not in favor of taking a good neighborhood in a bad direction.

I agree with Rosalind 100%. Once owner-occupancy is not necessary, absentee owners will spring up all over. Neighbourhoods will change forever, and none of the changes will be positive.

I am so disappointed in councils' decision!

Tradesman wrote:There is no doubt that some residences are scared to to say anything, sign a petition,written submission or attend the hearing and understandably so considering the activity that goes on at the applicants property.

Fancy you are Incorrect there are not hundreds living in the area have a look at the map of the affected area I posted earlier. Approximately 70 residences affected. One of them in fact is the Shannon lake elementary school *because its not on the same street does not exclude the school from the affected area.

Council will need to decide what precedent is set which could be a number of reasons, however If approved I will not be voting for those in favor at the next election. I'm not in favor of taking a good neighborhood in a bad direction.

What do you mean I'm incorrect? You think there's only 70 residences with single occupancy? Everyone has a voice and I believe there are hundreds living in the vicinity that would be affected by the decision made by council.

council will only consider submissions from the affected area. If you live in the affected area you may speak.

*Public hearing is Tuesday 1:30

Gotta agree with Rosalind too. In my opinion the changes will not provide low cost housing. It will drive down the value of property even further than it already is and provide even less motivation to build a sustainable community. I hope people will remember this issue come election in 2 years (doubtful but I am hopeful). The current mayor and council I'm sure have good intentions but unfortunately seem to lack the vision and/or the fortitude to make decisions that will build a strong community.

For those who think what others do in a community doesn't effect you (or me), well you're wrong. That's why certain communities are more sought after. Why certain areas are more valuable than others. Why some areas are better, happier, healthier places to live and raise a family. This is what a community is, as opposed to a bunch of houses where the people in the nice ones are trying to get out because of the people who could care less.

Hope to see you in a couple years Ms. Neis.

I too am disappointed in the decision to forego owner occupancy. I am also curious as to the reason for it - it seemed to just come out of the blue and receive first and second readings with very little discussion, or chance of input from the community. If council found that the Owner Occupancy requirement was not enforceable in a court of law, then I could understand it, but I've yet to hear that. I hope the business license ruling has some teeth to go up against absentee landlords who don't care what happens on their property.

Tradesman wrote:council will only consider submissions from the affected area. If you live in the affected area you may speak.

*Public hearing is Tuesday 1:30

This is so wrong on so many levels!!!
Any person or persons that reside within the ditricts boundaries are eligible to
speak on any goings on within those same boudaries.
It does not matter if it is across the street or the other side of town, it
is "the" affected area.
This is how they bully their way towards 'blanket zoneing" bylaws.

If you are not allowed to stand up for your entire community, then IMO
the process is broken.

Bring on the steamrollers!!!