Loss of houses a key concern: mayor

In 2008, Oak Bay lost eight houses. In 2015, a total of 34 houses were lost, most to demolition, the report said.

“The upward trend in housing loss is the primary concern,” Jensen said.

For the first five months of this year, 11 demolition permits have been granted and seven more submitted, the report said, putting 2016 on par with last year.

Last year, 938 building permits were issued, up by 20 per cent over historical norms. This shows that the vast majority of construction in the municipality is renovation-driven, the report said.

When new houses go up, they tend to be built to the maximum size permitted.

Much of what is taking place is driven by market forces, some within B.C. and some offshore, Jensen said. “Those forces can only be dealt with by the provincial and federal governments in order to dampen down the frenzy that is going on.”

Oak Bay has limited ability to affect market forces through its policies, he said. The report suggests allowing increased density on a property to encourage owners to retain larger, older homes. Vancouver has implemented such a policy to preserve historic houses on large lots.

Jensen said that is likely something Oak Bay could do, especially as it is examining its infill strategy.

Oak Bay could implement a combination of incentives and regulations, the report said.

Ideas include tax exemptions for significant renovations, and a demolition tax with proceeds going to heritage preservation. Another option would be allowing existing duplexes to be stratatitled. In that case, it would mean both halves of a strata would have to agree to demolition, thus reducing the chance of that taking place.

A mandatory community heritage register for qualified houses was also suggested. Putting a house on a register is different from a heritage designation because it does not impose restrictions or legal protection on houses, the report said.

Registers provide more opportunities for staff to have discussions with current or prospective owners, resulting in education and possible planning creativity if retaining a house is desirable.

The report said it recognized homeowners’ right to develop their land in line with regulations and bylaws, that legislative restrictions limit options available to council, and that many homes are removed for legitimate end-of-life reasons.