“Undue Hardship” for Whom?

A developer is seeking permission to build a five story, 14 unit luxury condo building (“The Quest”) on a 10,588 residential square foot lot at 2326 Oak Bay Avenue in Oak Bay. The proposal would result in the destruction of a significant protected approximately 200 year old Garry Oak tree at 2340 Oak Bay Avenue. The Advisory Planning Commission considered the proposal on July 4, 2017. The developer’s consultant 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 in Oak Bay, any alterations to the tree must comply with Bylaw 4326. The relevant clause in this case states that the tree at issue can only be removed if “a requirement to construct the building or structure in an alternate location would impose an undue hardship.” The 2326 property was purchased by the developer for $900,000. It is estimated that the total list price for the proposed development will be approximately $13 million. Alternate proposals have been previously suggested for this site,that would not require destroying the tree. The developer would still make a tidy profit – albeit not as large as the one he’d earn by destroying the tree. This begs the question: is requiring a developer to earn a slightly smaller profit in order to comply with our Tree Bylaw 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 protecting and enhancing an urban forest, pursuant to Oak Bay’s Urban Forest Strategy? Mike Wilmut