‘Undue hardship’ for whom?

Re: “Oak tree crux of condo debate,” Sept. 3.

A developer is seeking permission to build a five storey, 14-unit luxury condo building (The Quest) on a 10,588-square-foot lot at 2326 Oak Bay Ave. The proposal would result in the destruction of a protected Garry oak tree about 200 years old at 2340 Oak Bay Ave.

The advisory planning commission considered the proposal on July 4, 2017. The developer and Oak Bay staff agreed the protected Garry oak is healthy and has many more years of life left, and the proposal would destroy the tree.

Since Garry oaks are protected, its destruction must be in compliance with Bylaw 4326. The relevant clause states that the tree at issue can be removed only if “a requirement to construct the building or structure in an alternate location would impose an undue hardship.”

The 2326 property was purchased for $900,000. The total list price for the proposed development is estimated to be about $13 million.

Many alternative proposals have been suggested for this site, which would not require destroying the protected tree. The developer would still make a tidy profit — although not as large as the one he’d earn by destroying the tree.

This raises the question: Is requiring a developer to earn a slightly smaller profit in order to comply with our bylaws an “undue hardship”?

Or is the true “undue hardship” our community’s loss of a majestic iconic symbol of Oak Bay and our commitment to the environmental benefits of an urban forest? Mike Wilmut Oak Bay