At its final scheduled meeting before the election, Council heard a wide range of community concerns, from safer crossings near Carnarvon Park to Oak Bay’s deer-management costs and the next operator of the marina. The sharpest debate focused on proposed changes to Uplands rules: councillors differed on whether to study limits on subdivision and principal buildings, and on when that work should begin. A separate dispute over a proposed addition at 2465 Chiltern Place turned on whether its front yard and driveway should be made greener as a condition. Council also discussed new winter hours for the Elgin Road transfer station and a package of rules for home-based businesses.
Generated from the recording's captions and the agenda (minutes not yet published by the council).
The mayor described meetings at the Union of British Columbia Municipalities conference, including support for Oak Bay’s resolution on soil chlorine rules, which have made soil disposal costly for coastal communities. He also noted provincial support for ongoing work on Oak Bay Lodge, upcoming community events and the approaching election. As this was the last scheduled meeting of the term, he thanked councillors Andrew Appleton, Carrie Smart and Lesley Watson, who are not seeking re-election, for their service.
Agreement
The mayor praised the council’s preparation, respectful conduct and service to the community.
Four members of the public raised unrelated community issues. A representative of the Canadian Heritage Arts Society proposed returning after the election to discuss a closer arts partnership and a year-round creative hub. An Oak Bay resident asked for safety measures at Henderson and Allen near Carnarvon Park, citing close calls, children crossing and poor visibility; the mayor said engineering was assessing the intersection and parking. A new resident asked how Oak Bay tracks its deer population and the results and cost of its contraception program; the mayor cited a past estimate of 90–125 deer, a target of 55 does and an $85,000 cost this year. Another resident asked when the public would learn the result of the Oak Bay Marina operator process; the mayor said an announcement was expected within one or two weeks after an in-camera decision.
Agreement
The mayor said engineering was actively assessing the Henderson and Allen intersection and parking near the stop signs.
The mayor said deer-program reporting and continued funding would be matters for the next council to consider.
The Director of Engineering and Public Works explained that the province’s decision to stop changing clocks means the transfer station could open at 8 a.m. in winter before sunrise. Because the site lacks adequate lighting, staff proposed winter hours of 9 a.m.–4:30 p.m. on weekdays and 9 a.m.–4 p.m. on Saturdays, from November 1 to March 31. Staff also proposed bylaw changes allowing the director to adjust hours if the province changes its time policy again. Council asked how residents would be notified and how the bylaw would protect service levels; staff said notification could use the website, local newspaper, social media and signs, and that the bylaw could prevent reductions in opening hours without Council approval.
Agreement
Staff and Council supported avoiding dark operations at a site without adequate lighting.
There was agreement that delegated authority should allow practical schedule adjustments without giving staff power to reduce service levels.
The application would let the two homes at 543 Monterey Avenue, including a 1937 house and a newer home with a secondary suite, be held as separate strata titles. Staff said the older house had been owner-occupied before a short interim rental and that the conversion was not expected to remove long-term rental housing. The tenant had already left, and upgrades to the older house were underway under existing building permits. Council asked about shared driveway access, fire access and the homes’ eventual civic numbers. Staff said the conversion was conditional on completing two building permits.
Agreement
Staff said the proposal fits the Official Community Plan policy supporting strata conversions on infill residential lots.
Council’s discussion focused on clarifying access and permit conditions rather than the principle of the conversion.
9.1 2465 Chiltern Place - Development Variance Permit (DVP00197) and Uplands Siting and Design (ADP00205)
zoning development3 public speakers39:55 Watch · Read
The proposal would replace an attached garage with a larger, single-storey gym addition. It needed variances to rear and side setbacks and building lot coverage. A resident argued that the lot had no physical hardship and that exceptions could weaken the Uplands’ park-like character and set a precedent. The project manager said an easement constrained the design, the addition was not intended to maximize house size, and the changes would not create unreasonable effects on neighbours; the applicant described keeping trees and a pollinator garden. During Council’s debate, a councillor proposed requiring landscaping equal to 1% of the lot, about 213 square feet, to reduce hard surfaces at the front. Other councillors opposed that added condition, citing the existing greenery, the sensitivity of the renovation and the limited practical room for parking.
Agreement
The project was described as retaining and adapting the existing home rather than demolishing it.
The applicant and project manager said vegetation would remain and the addition would be screened from nearby properties.
Disagreement
A public speaker argued the variances lacked a site hardship and risked weakening neighbourhood standards; the project team argued the easement and design needs justified the proposal.
A councillor sought an additional 213 square feet of front-yard landscaping; other councillors opposed that condition, citing parking needs and the site’s existing vegetation.
9.2 2215 Bowker Avenue: Development Variance Permit (DVP00201) and Strata Conversion (SUB00043)
The applications would allow an existing duplex to be divided into separate strata titles for its current residents, with variances covering existing setbacks and paved-yard conditions. Staff said the variances were tied to the plans and would not create new development rights. One of the owners explained that the family sought separate titles partly to access two homeowner grants and to give an older spouse a possible way to borrow against the property later. Councillors described the property as well maintained and the arrangement as an example of multigenerational housing.
Agreement
Staff clarified that the variances applied to the existing building and did not grant additional development rights.
Councillors expressed support for the property’s upkeep and for the potential of strata ownership to support multigenerational living.
10.1 2851 Foul Bay Road: Development Permit with Variances (DP000073)
The proposal would modernize a 1954 mixed-use building on Foul Bay Road, accommodate a future deli and retain four rental apartments. Work includes accessibility, seismic and life-safety upgrades, new balconies and storefront features, landscaping, patio seating and bicycle parking. Staff explained that only two parking stalls are fully within the private property line; other existing spaces partly occupy district land and do not count under the bylaw. Council also asked about tenant relocation, fire access, bike storage for cargo bikes and a possible formal agreement for landscaping on the boulevard. Staff said the tenant had to vacate for exploratory work and that fire staff had no concerns.
Agreement
Staff said the redevelopment would retain the four existing rental apartments and improve the building’s safety and accessibility.
Council welcomed the reuse of the existing building and the proposed bicycle facilities.
10.2 2999 Beach Drive - Uplands Siting and Design (ADP00207)
The application concerned a pergola, sauna, outdoor shower and hot tub on an existing second-storey patio. Staff said the additions were minor, consistent with the home’s design and not visible from Beach Drive. The Advisory Design Panel recommended approval, and Council had no questions.
Agreement
Staff and the Advisory Design Panel considered the proposal consistent with the Uplands design guidelines.
10.3 2657 Cranmore Road: Development Permit (DP000075)
The application was for a rear-yard deck within 30 metres of Bowker Creek, so it required review under the district’s watercourse development permit area rules. Staff said the applicant’s environmental professional found the proposal consistent with the area’s protective intent, and the Advisory Planning Commission recommended approval. Council had no questions.
Agreement
Staff and the Advisory Planning Commission considered the deck consistent with the environmental review.
10.4 1732 Armstrong Avenue: Development Permit (DP000076)
This application was also for a rear-yard deck within 30 metres of Bowker Creek. A councillor asked whether construction would use the creek walkway and how vegetation and public access would be protected. Staff said all work and material storage would be handled from the front and driveway, away from the creek. The Advisory Planning Commission had recommended approval.
Agreement
Staff said construction access and material storage would stay away from Bowker Creek and its walkway.
10.5 310 King George Terrace: Zoning Bylaw Amendment (ZON00058) and Development Permit (DP00058)
Staff reported that a covenant had been signed and was being registered, securing an accessible washroom in one suite and fire sprinklers in the units. This cleared the way for Council to consider the zoning bylaw and development permit. One councillor said they would oppose both parts because they considered the site to have too many subdivisions; no other concerns were raised.
Agreement
Staff said the covenant addressed the accessibility and fire-safety requirements Council had previously set.
Disagreement
One councillor opposed the proposal, citing the number of subdivisions on the property.
Council considered adoption of the permissive tax exemption bylaw for 2027. The transcript records no discussion of particular exemptions or objections.
Council considered a package of changes covering home-based businesses, tickets, parking facilities, signs and business licences. Three councillors raised concerns about the effects on village centres and local businesses, and one asked for more input from the Business Improvement Association and an earlier study of impacts than the proposed second quarter of 2028. The mayor said the rules followed about a year and a half of consultation, that issues raised by the public had been considered, and that the bylaws could be amended if unintended effects emerged.
Agreement
Councillors agreed that the effects of home-based businesses on local businesses and village centres were important to monitor.
Disagreement
Some councillors wanted more business-community input and an earlier review; the mayor considered the consultation adequate and the bylaws amendable if problems emerged.
11.1 Notice of Motion for the September 21, 2026 Council Meeting regarding Uplands Neighbourhood Regulations - Councillor Braithwaite
The motion asked staff to examine Council’s authority under the Oak Bay Special Powers Act, options for regulating further subdivision in the Uplands and options for limiting principal buildings on Uplands properties. The mover said the goal was to understand the choices—not to prohibit housing or adopt a neighbourhood association’s proposal—and pointed to the area’s national historic designation and changed provincial housing rules. Councillors supported studying the issue but differed on the timing and on whether subdivision or building limits should be explored. Concerns included a current court case, the risk of discouraging strata ownership and multigenerational homes, and the need to accommodate housing while protecting the neighbourhood’s landscape and character. The discussion referenced a petition with 348 signatures.
Agreement
Councillors broadly agreed that the Uplands’ planning rules and the effect of provincial housing legislation merited careful review.
The discussion treated the request as a study of options, not an immediate final decision on zoning.
Disagreement
Councillors differed on whether the work should wait for a court case to be resolved and whether subdivision or principal-building limits were appropriate subjects for further regulation.
Some emphasized preserving the Uplands’ land pattern and character; others warned that restrictions could limit housing and ownership options, including strata and multigenerational homes.
11.2 Notice of Motion for the September 21, 2026 Council Meeting regarding Elect Respect Campaign - Councillor Smart
The motion called for respectful conduct toward elected officials and urged people to reject harassment and focus debate on ideas and policies. The sponsor said targeted emails and online abuse can discourage people from running for office, and asked the community to treat candidates as people with families and feelings. The mayor described the motion as reaffirming the existing code of conduct. Councillors supported the conduct pledge itself, but some objected to a separate request that people sign the campaign’s online pledge because the website required contact details for ongoing communications.
Agreement
Councillors supported respectful debate and rejecting harassment of candidates and elected officials.
The mayor said the motion reaffirmed existing conduct standards rather than establishing new policy.
Disagreement
Some councillors were uncomfortable asking the public to sign the online pledge because it required sharing contact information.
Decisions
Oak Bay has not published the minutes for this meeting yet. Councils post minutes only after a later meeting adopts them, usually two to six weeks afterwards. We check weekly. We last checked Fri, Oct 2, 2026. Votes and decisions are taken only from the official minutes, so this section fills in once Oak Bay publishes them. Anything above about motions comes from the recording and is preliminary.