Home » Sooke Councillors interest in resolving an affordable housing matter at odds with staff’s need for legal and informed input    

Comments

Sooke Councillors interest in resolving an affordable housing matter at odds with staff’s need for legal and informed input — 8 Comments

  1. Nothing wrong with mobiles. Perhaps if they were still allowed there wouldn’t be so many people living in rvs and cars. Too many NIMBY property owners. This is sooke not oak bay.

  2. People who drive these complaints are often more privileged than those seeking these creative and affordable housing options. It’s time that the complaint driven NIMBY decisions at this level were replaced by a humanity based process that actually does some research. There is absolutely no reason why options like this that can help families stay afloat should not be considered. Far healthier than piling people on top of each other in a cramped apartment building on a street corner. Sooke properties tend to have larger lots than in urban areas. An acre is a lot of land ! Who really needs that much land all to themselves?

  3. I agree…with not only mobiles but tiny homes, newer RVs…some people don’t need big houses so why not use private rural land for tasteful multi family “housing”. Example might be mom/dad don’t need their family home anymore so they sell it privately to their child and they move into a smaller home, ie: mobile or RV on same property. It’s a win win for families

  4. If only council would review the OCP and not have a Land use Committee, which is only a committee to support developers, not looking at Land uses and making recommendation to council. That is what a land use committee should do.
    The OCP needs to be revised to address housing. I agree Modular homes and 12 month a year campers sites need to be added to address affordability. This needs to be done through the OCP Review and then a Zoning bylaw to accommodate the changes.
    It is really unfortunate, with the understanding that modular homes are allowed in all zones but some strange stipulations are attached to it.
    We had lawyers and developers on our zoning bylaw committee, and alledged competent staff and a review. Why or why is there such incompetence?
    The CAO , should never have given any verbal approval. She has no authority to do so. Seems she also thought to give approval to 5536 Sooke Rd and resulted in another fiasco.
    Clarity is needed in job descriptions # 1.
    # 2, developers need to know exactly what the District expects of them in black and white. It is much easier for them to fill in their forms and make their applications when they know exactly what is expected of them, not some charges pulled out of thin air or some compensations made if they do something or other. Clarity Please.
    Here again Mrs. Hicks assumed she could go ahead as she was led to believe she could. Little wonder there is a staffing shortage with the gross incompetence by some and the lack of clarity. The money is extraordinary for staffing , so what is lacking?