Saanich EDPA
Contact the author of the petition
Guest#1 Feb 24, 2015, 17:45
Thanks Anita for taking this initiative.
Guest#2 Feb 25, 2015, 15:35
The science is weak, relying on high level mapping without field verification.
Guest#3 Mar 01, 2015, 03:21
What specific areas are being considered for protection and / or revised mapping? What are the areas that are considered high biodiversity? Is this related to Island view park or other areas as well?
Guest#4 Mar 06, 2015, 17:03
Need to protect those areas of highest biodiversity, not areas of lawn and gardens! Or those areas dominated by invasive species already.
Guest#5 Mar 28, 2015, 23:36
I signed this petition because of the way the District of Saanich with their Planning Dept, Biologist officer and Council have adopted the Bylaw. As far as I can tell the profesionals on staff gave very little consideration or thought into the process of their bylaw. This bylaw is very damaging to land and property owners in the Dist. The value of property's was not considered at all. This bylaw would not have even got past a public hearing. This was done very quietly so as not to alert any residents or land owners in the Dist. to challenge it.
Over the past few years the Dist. seems to have done a lot of things negative in my opinion with no public hearing for the public input. Bylaws have been passed that 90 % of the residents are not aware of and would not of agreed to..
Over the past few years the Dist. seems to have done a lot of things negative in my opinion with no public hearing for the public input. Bylaws have been passed that 90 % of the residents are not aware of and would not of agreed to..
Guest#6 Mar 30, 2015, 01:02
I do not want government on my property
Guest#7 Mar 31, 2015, 00:40
This is private property. How can restrictions be imposed without any communication or discussion with us, the property owners?
S.E.#8 Apr 04, 2015, 01:31
Hindsight is Always 20/20
Rather than not developing the areas in the EDPA to begin with, Saanich has turned around and placed the onus of responsibility for these "sensitive ecosystems" on property owners. This is ridiculous. The land has been developed. There is no going back to return the areas in the EDPA to their original state. Saanich needs to learn from this lesson and allow it to inform their decisions when issuing development approvals in the future. Their short-sightedness of the enviornmental impact of development should not rest on homeowners.
Guest#9 Apr 04, 2015, 22:05
We don't want to keep losing our freedom!!!!
Guest#10 Apr 07, 2015, 04:53
I want to hear more about the impacts that it has on a property owner.
Guest#11 Apr 07, 2015, 16:25
No harvesting and planting of home gardens? How does this help humans ,the birds and animals.? Use more gas to go to food stores? Taking away right to plant crops ? Not to be able to have your children play in a play house in your own yard ? Not being able to pave areas that are rocky that could trip and cause injury?
We have always respected the large oak trees on our property and have left the back half totally untouched for fifty years for animals and ecosystem.
Come on to all our properties with suggestions, identity habitat, work together instead of imposing a series of non enforceable laws, , and making a small group of land owners punishable by taking away basic rights of land ownership.
Are you going to fine people that may dig a hole in a spot of lawn to plant an apple tree that gives food? deny alr land use that feeds people? Don't you realize farming practices are shrinking due to all regulations and importing of food from other countries? I have been a back yard gardener in Saanich for many years. The ground was enriched, many birds and animals had shelter and food, trapped rainwater for watering most of it,and also gave excess to local food banks.
We have always respected the large oak trees on our property and have left the back half totally untouched for fifty years for animals and ecosystem.
Come on to all our properties with suggestions, identity habitat, work together instead of imposing a series of non enforceable laws, , and making a small group of land owners punishable by taking away basic rights of land ownership.
Are you going to fine people that may dig a hole in a spot of lawn to plant an apple tree that gives food? deny alr land use that feeds people? Don't you realize farming practices are shrinking due to all regulations and importing of food from other countries? I have been a back yard gardener in Saanich for many years. The ground was enriched, many birds and animals had shelter and food, trapped rainwater for watering most of it,and also gave excess to local food banks.
Guest#12 Apr 07, 2015, 21:59
By not allowing me to remove, alter or disrupt any vegetation or soils in this area, it could mean harm and potential destruction to my family's home
Guest#13 Apr 07, 2015, 23:51
Saanich is becoming over-zealous in the drafting of bylaws and regulations. We are seeing continuous bureaucracy-creep and interference in the daily lives of Saanich residents, which must be stopped. Also, residential properties on each side of the Urban Containment Boundary should not necessarily be treated in the same way. What is necessary in a high-density area of small lots might not be necessary in an area of large, rural acreages. Many of us live in rural areas to escape the pedantic nit-picking that goes on in urban environments and reserve the right to continue to enjoy a degree of freedom that comes with country living. I'm tired of Saanich townies telling me what I can and can't do (mostly can't these days).
Guest#14 Apr 08, 2015, 01:30
I don't agree with the indiscriminate policy of this bylaw!
Guest#15 Apr 11, 2015, 01:32
I think Garry Oak ecosystems with their understory of camas and other native understory species should be preserved. However the mere presence of Oak trees does not indicate the presence of the ecosystem as many understories were destroyed decades ago. The trees themselves are adequately protected. Actual ecosystems should be identified by ground checks as the existing mapping was apparently mostly done by aerial photos
Guest#16 Apr 15, 2015, 16:57
Over the past thirty or so years Saanich has gone down the path of taking away the rights of the landowner,through tree bylaws ,riparian zones,and now this edpa.I am tired of this attitude.
Guest#17 Apr 15, 2015, 20:51
I am already controlled by the Municipality because I have a "Heritage Elm Tree" on the S.E. corner of my lot. Because of the Significant Tree programme, I cannot prune the Elm to a Manageable size for a sub-division. It affects three other lots, and is not appreciated. I would like to control my own property in an attractive manner.
Guest#18 Apr 15, 2015, 22:45
There has to be transparency, not just an imposition of this on luckless and unwitting landowners.
Guest#19 Apr 15, 2015, 23:29
The Saanich EDPA is both poorly thought out and unreasonable.
Guest#20 Apr 16, 2015, 00:14
Pushing back against bureaucratic over-reach.
Guest#21 Apr 16, 2015, 16:07
As the letter suggests, I am very concerned with the lack of process in the implementation of this by-law. Far more transparency and opportunities for consultation need to occur.
Guest#22 Apr 16, 2015, 17:10
Way too much government!
Guest#23 Apr 19, 2015, 13:52
1) I feel that policies placing restrictions like these should be decided based on the desires of the citizens; civic administrators that are mandated to act on behalf of the citizens should be consulting the citizens on important policies such as EDPA to ensure that their actions reflect the desires of the citizens impacted by the policies.
2) I was not made aware of the EDPA restrictions / policy by the Municipality of Saanich and I feel that the municipality acted deliberately in hiding their agenda from the citizens in this respect.
3) This restriction may tend to reduce property values of the areas directly implicated by EDPA. In doing so, surrounding properties will also see a negative impact on their value.
2) I was not made aware of the EDPA restrictions / policy by the Municipality of Saanich and I feel that the municipality acted deliberately in hiding their agenda from the citizens in this respect.
3) This restriction may tend to reduce property values of the areas directly implicated by EDPA. In doing so, surrounding properties will also see a negative impact on their value.
Guest#24 Apr 21, 2015, 19:52
Because we are responsible adults and landowners and LOVE our rural property!
| This discussion has been closed. |