By Roy Wood, Special to the Times Chronicle
Contrary to the recommendation of its own planning department, Osoyoos council has rejected a developer’s request to increase by about 2.8 metres (nine feet) the allowable height of a proposed 40-unit apartment building near the town core.
The all-rental apartment block is proposed for a vacant site across 89th Street from Osoyoos Elementary School. A building permit has been applied for but can’t be issued unless council approves changing the maximum allowable height for a building on the property.
Specifically, the developer seeks an increase in allowable height from 13 metres (42.6 feet) to 15.8 metres (51.8 feet).
In a report to council at a recent regular meeting, planner Shannon Duong pointed out the town has received just one written objection to the variance complaining about the impact on views from nearby property.
“When considering land use applications,” she said, “it is generally understood that there is no right to an unobstructed view from a property.”
In summarizing, Duong said: “[The] administration finds that the proposed variance is unlikely to have substantial negative impacts on the use and privacy of surrounding properties.
“While there may be impacts on the established streetscape character of today, the future land use direction for the properties along 89th Avenue suggests that streetscape impacts will be minimal in the future.”
Councillor Myers Bennett made the motion to reject the variance application. “I don’t see this variance being that important. It’s just looks,” he said.
Bennett added that, in view of the town’s recent budget challenges, the extra height could have an impact on the town’s need for a fire truck capable of reaching the top floors of tall buildings. “It may be costly,” he said.
Echoing Bennett’s view, Councillor Johnny Cheong said if the developer could reduce the height of the underground parking and eliminate some of the aesthetic effects involved on the top floor, “[It might] bring us into the area where we don’t need a variance. There is room for compromise.”
Councillor Zach Poturica was the only one to vote against the motion to reject the variance. He argued that forcing the developer to reduce the planned height of the bottom-floor parking garage would restrict the types of vehicles able to access the area, potentially eliminating “accessible vehicles or multi-family vehicles” from the space.
Following the passage of the motion to reject, Mayor Sue McKortoff asked council if anyone would like to make another proposal to move forward with the development.
Councillor Jim King rejected the notion. “I don’t think it’s our job to make that decision. We turned down the variance, now it’s up to the developer to decide what he wants to do.”
No further action by council was proposed.
The proposed apartment would offer some relief for the affordable housing crunch faced by the town.
A “housing agreement” attached to the property, stipulates that for a period of 10 years, all of the 40 units would be “used exclusively for rental housing and that not less than 10 per cent housing units will be designated as “Below Market Value Housing Units.”
