Someone emailed this question to me yesterday:
Would you be for or against going ahead with the plan that has received first reading? I mean going ahead with something that closely resembles the large development that they have in mind even if it is still "tweaked" abit? Or would you prefer a much smaller density, closer to existing OCP, even if we lose access to some waterfront & trails.
This is the most important question I have regarding my vote in the election. I would appreciate hearing from you.
Dear XXXX: I am sorry, but don't have a good concise answer for you. I am in favour of a good comprehensive development, as opposed to a 58 lot subdivision without further rezoning. I personally am not married to the large park and 80% + waterfront, but those elements appear to be very important to a lot of people. So, to me it is a question of what the public at large really wants, and at what cost ( in terms of densities and uses). I will sincerely be guided by what the public appetite is.
A couple of other things. Right now, the OCP says 224 single family residences (dwelling units). However, we have passed a secondary suites bylaw that essentially would allow all those units to have an extra suite, ie 448 units if all chose to do so! I argued against providing this automatic entitlement in new comprehensive zonings when the bylaw was being debated. My inclination was to control suite numbers as we had with Greenways West- which allowed 8 of the 23 units to have suites.
This proposal allows suites, but the proponents have said that is negotiable. So if we allowed, say, 25% of 295 single family residences to have suites, plus the 95 multi-family units, the total comes to about 460. Not much difference. Affordable housing is an add-on to the density provisions under both models.
As to the Inn- my take is that it is outsized for Bowen sensibilities, and possibly counter ot the Islands Trust policy statement and our OCP which prohibit building 'attractions' as opposed to filling local needs. The Seniors' Continuum of Care suffers the same scale problem though to me, as an institutional development, and one which greatly enhances services for seniors, I am less critical of it. The other stuff- the school/community sites, live-work, limited commercial, are all fine by me.
Dave Witty's plan was for 275 units (235 of which to be single family), and 100% public waterfront. But he did not include the $7.5 million to municipal coffers. 235 permitted suites added, and the plans converge a lot more...
At Cowan's Point, we allowed current OCP buildout- about 175 units, I recall, each of which now will be able to build a suite. On top of that we permitted a 20 room inn, 16 condo units, some commercial space, and a 20 room 'retreat'. The inn, retreat and condos could conceivably be marketed together as a de facto 56 room inn.
I would not likely be in favour of giving further readings to the bylaw as current worded for two other reasons. First, there is a big pinch point between Pebbly Beach and the Cape, which is by far the most popular and valuable public amenity offering. The public dedication should be wider. Second, much of the flat land has agricultural capability, and lies within our Agricultural map. Simply providing a community garden is not a good enough tradeoff for alienating those lands. I would like to see those lands still available for future agricultural use. One way is to have a 'Horsey area'- larger lots, a horse ring, etc. that provides a high value use that still reasonably protects the land.
Reply back: Thanks for your well thought out response Peter.
Good luck in the election.
NOV. 5 UPDATE
The Cape Roger Curtis Trust Society emailed questions to the candidates in advance of the meeting November 9th. These are the questions:
* How do you see the mandate of the Island Trust to preserve and
protect the natural features of the Islands (including Bowen) benefiting
Bowen?
* Do you support a fast tracked and thorough revision of the OCP
and a moratorium on all major unapproved development projects on Bowen
during the revision?
* Would this moratorium include a) the latest development proposal
for CRC and b) the earlier subdivision application for 58 10acre lots?
* Do you support the latest development proposal for the Cape?
* Are you satisfied that the current level of research submitted
regarding the proposal is adequate to address the issues of water,
sensitive area protection, environmental impact, transportation,
emergency response and availability of sufficient power to supply this
and other development?
This was my answer:
The mandate of the Trust includes more than protecting the natural features of Bowen Island. The Object speaks to preservation and protection of the Trust Area-both its unnique amenities and environment, and is expressed primarily through the Policy Statement, updated 2003.
Curiously, the tag line for the Trust places a slightly different emphasis:
Preserving Island communities, culture and environment
There are enormous benefits to Bowen- we are bound and obligated by the legislation, so major bylaw amendments affecting land use must be approved or at least reviewed as being conforming by both Trust staff and executive.
As well,the Trust holds land and covenants on Bowen, provided our Crown Land profiles, and was the vehicle for the Fairy Fen Crown Land Grant. We can access Trust office resources, such as GIS mapping, and are party to the various protocol agreements and Memoranda of understanding- with First Nations and San Juan County for example. So we are very much part of a team.
Yes, I support a fastracked OCP review commencing in the first quarter of 2009. I believe that review of major unapproved development projects, specifically CRC and the Coummunity owned lands in Snug Cove should be EMBEDDED within the overall OCP review. This will provide specificity and focus to the process.
The earlier subdivision application for 58 lots could not be constrained,if re-activated, by an OCP review, as authority for subdivision rests with the approving officer, not Council.
I do not support the current development propsal in its details- both overall numbers and land use patterns. I do strongly support a comprehensive rezoning approach to the Cape, and the major elements contained in the current application. Public appetite for the tradeoff cost/benefits will guide my decisions about final density, how it is measured, and what exact amenities are obtained. Park, trails, extensive shore access, public land deidcation are paramount.
I have read the reports submitted by the Cape proponents- not line by line, but extensively. The environmental aspects, I believe, are quite well addressed. However, the water study is troubling to me, in that there is very little margin in supply. Also, I do not trust the transportation study as truly reflecting the impacts the development would have both on cross-island and ferry traffic. Finally, the proposed sewer outfall, which if constructed to tertially treatment levels would not likely introduce biohazards to the ocean environment.But it would collect and hasten groundwater return to the ocean. I believe there are better alternatives.
Emergency response is not something I feel qualified to comment on. Clearly, CRC is at the ‘end of the road, as is Bluewater or Hood Point West and Cowan’s. Response times and capacity are critical. Our firechief is very cautious, as was seen with the Inn appication earlier this year. He has concerns about 4 storey buildings which I share. I am sure that before any approvals are given, they would receive a full vetting.
No comments:
Post a Comment