Living Bowen

Living Bowen's submission to the OCP IDEAS forum

2009-10-11T20:41:00.000-07:00

Bowen Island, being an island municipality within the Islands Trust, is distinctly different from all other communities in Canada and needs a unique model of governance that will ensure its long-term protection, preservation and conservation, cultural/social character and economic sustainability. As one island within a valuable group of islands making up a highly vulnerable coastal eco-system and supported by the Island Trust, Bowen has a vital role: that of a city-adjacent carbon sink; an important piece of a natural and protected coastal inventory of our larger world; and as a place of natural beauty offering serenity, retreat and sanctuary for residents and visitors alike.

Our key message: We strongly advocate, for Bowen Island, an approach of highly focused land-use planning, which works backwards from a vision of a built-out future island rather than an open-ended process. An island is by definition “finite” in geographical and natural resources terms. Attempting to define the “finished product” – the future Bowen – based on established island values and goals forces one to make tough choices and recognize how decisions made today limit choices in the future. This approach will require change – both adaptability to change and ability to enact change in support of a master plan for a green and livable island and to help the community achieve its vision. Local governance should be strongly aligned with stated community principles and values in its decision-making processes including the updating of by-laws/regulations. These may include taking the lead in these areas such as: “in-character” building guidelines, dark skies bylaw, innovative land uses, incentives to encourage voluntary compliance and positive change, protective/assertive zoning, private land conservation (e.g., donations/covenants), facilitating island-appropriate solutions for density/affordable housing and growth management, expanding transit and supporting transportation alternatives (e.g. electric cars, scooters, bikes), advocating for change in external regulations, and so on --with the aim to envision and facilitate a future Bowen we can all recognize and call home. The most powerful role a government can play is being a catalyst and enabler.

We envision a future built-out island that is developed through consideration of the following list of top-down priorities: firstly, environment/ecology considerations and natural resources determines population; secondly, population determines the development, infrastructure and economic growth; thirdly, population demographics (and desired demographics) determines the type, density and location of housing, and the composition of local businesses and services. Given the required brevity of this submission, we first discuss the required decisions regarding land use, and then focus on what we define as our highest priority: to preserve and protect this special place in the natural world, and to provide a place of natural beauty, respite and serenity for all B.C. residents, while nurturing our own rich and diverse community in harmony with its natural surroundings.

Land Use: The “Built-Out” Bowen
We propose the adoption of an approach to planning that first determines (as much as possible) the ideal percentages and distributions of land uses in the “built-out” future island. This would involve defining (1) the various types of land uses that are desired, (2) the relative percentages of these land uses at present and in the projected “built-out” island, and (3) the location of these various land uses on the island at present and when built-out”.

What various types of land uses are desired?
Answering this question requires that we first determine a vision for Bowen Island, recognizing that Bowen cannot be all things to all people. It is essential that we keep in mind, as we update the OCP, that Bowen Island is not the same as other municipalities in the lower mainland, in spite of similar challenges to human systems (e.g. the high cost of housing, growing populations) and to natural systems (e.g. environmental degradation, climate change). Bowen Island is an island municipality within the Islands Trust. As such, we are required, through provincial legislation, to address the needs of all residents of British Columbia to have access to wild, protected places. In order to clearly distinguish each type of land-use, we propose to describe these as: (1) “modified landscapes” such as parkland/green spaces used by people; (2) “wild” protected natural lands with managed access, and (3) people/infrastructure, including agricultural , commercial and natural resource use including the adjacent marine environment.

What should be the relative percentages and locations of these land uses?
Answering both of these questions requires that we have a significantly improved understanding of the Bowen landscape and environments. A comprehensive and complete environmental study of our natural inventory should be completed utilizing state-of-the-art modeling software and incorporating previous and current work underway in these areas (e.g. Bowen Geolibrary project). In order to create a vision of the future Bowen, we need to know what the end vision should look like, and also where we are presently in the context of that vision. We also need to know exactly what natural assets we have and what impacts our land-use decisions will have.

There is a growing environmental trend underway world-wide of “restoration and re-establishment“; that is, attempting to restore damaged and lost environments. Restoration is neither easy nor inexpensive. Let us be ahead of the curve and protect our finite natural assets now. We must also recognize that modified green spaces such as parks where people recreate do not offer the same quality of protection for ecology as do wild forested areas.

Some Principles of Island Protection & Conservation

That a significant percentage [to be determined] of the available green lands should be set aside and preserved for ecological conservation, habitat/species protection and retention of vital natural resources – in perpetuity. This includes supporting the goals of “contiguous forest” (e.g., Greenways initiative) to ensure the natural ecosystems that are preserved continue to be viable and productive for terrestrial and aquatic wildlife.

To employ the precautionary principle of erring on the side of safety and “redundancy” – that is, to preserve and protect more of the natural, wild areas than we think we need. To protect natural areas from risks we cannot control such as wildfires, disease, climate change, weather, etc., a great deal of nature redundancy is required. Set aside as much as possible to account for the unforeseen.

To employ a principle of “restoration or habitat compensation” -- that is for every significant withdrawal from the natural inventory, an equal or compensatory deposit goes back to the natural system for both private and public lands. For example, if significant trees are removed for development/views, similar trees are planted elsewhere on the property, or if not feasible, on crown or park land. Or, if this is not practical, then payment into a conservation/restoration fund is required. Methodologies for quantifying and cost-valuing environmental assets and services, including trees, exist. And, for new buildings, perhaps a requirement to plant significant buffers of native trees and shrubs along the property perimeter to mitigate the effect on neighbours and to retain natural inventory.

For necessary and approved new housing (subject to other principles of island capacity), an approach of first building out from our existing development footprint, wherever possible, in order to avoid new intrusion on remaining wild, natural forested areas. This may or may not be possible depending on geographical factors, property ownership, or crown and private land constraints but should be a goal. Identifying and protecting “green” areas, an environment-first approach, will make it more clear where development should occur and to what extent.

Bowen Island: Our Community and Eco-System

The focus of our submission has been on what we define as our highest priority: preservation of the natural environment. We conclude by briefly considering our community and addressing issues of population growth and local economy/services.

We advocate a “slow-growth” policy that encourages a pace of growth that does not overwhelm the island’s environmental or community capacity; an ecological approach to planning that governs and manages Bowen Island as a healthy eco-system and maintains permanently the critical balance of natural “habitat” and humans/other species necessary to ensure a healthy island eco-system.

We recognize that, to protect environmental and social values requires a particularly delicate balance of community rights/needs and individual ones. At times, a community or environmental need may take precedence over that of the individual;

We support planning for demographic diversity through a increase of rental/leasing choices and some reasonably priced market housing, e.g. clustered, small footprint design with appropriate, well sited density; as well, we must have an implementation plan that serves the needs of existing residents of Bowen first and with consideration given to other low impact solutions (e.g. approved cottages or “small house” accessory buildings) that may reduce the need for new sub-divisions and housing developments;

We support an economic/business model that responds to the needs of the community and provides a good living for the owner/family and employees, but does not “drive” population growth and planning; we also support low-impact, small-footprint and environmentally benign businesses that are compatible for small island living.

Lastly, but perhaps most importantly, Bowen Island living is as much about what it “isn’t” as it is about what it “is”. Many people choose island living for what it doesn’t offer -- e.g. distinctly urban amenities and franchises, high taxes to fund high infrastructure, noise, 24/7 lights, crowding, pollution and crime. And, in turn, they may forgo some level of expectations around convenience, expedient commuting and some familiar comforts and amenities. Island living is different by definition and requires a planning and governance model tailor-made to preserve and enhance its island character and valuable natural assets for perpetuity.

Bowen Community Cleanup Report

2009-08-10T10:26:00.000-07:00

I would like to thank everyone who participated in the Community Clean-up this past weekend. It was amazing to see just how much garbage was in our ditches – beer cans and bottles, cigarette packages, plastic bags, styrofoam, shoes, a knee brace, and even a plastic chair were turned in. There were so many cigarette butts that I stopped picking them up after a while. In less than two city-sized blocks, I retrieved more than a flat of beer cans, several bottles and half a green garbage bag of non-recyclable garbage (on Grafton Road). You might not see this stuff while driving, but if you walk along the ditches and look down, there is a lot of garbage to be found. If you have the inclination to do a sweep on your own, the worst areas seem to be Grafton Road, Adams Road and Seniors Lane.

There were unfortunately, many competing events so we didn’t get the numbers that we would have liked. However those who showed up were enthusiastic and proved to have excellent garbage-gathering skills! It was nice to see our Mayor doing his part too. Next year we will try to hold this event in the spring before the ditches are overgrown. There is clearly a need for this type of clean-up. It didn’t take long to fill the back of a pick-up truck. With better participation, we should be able to fill several.

Special thank-you’s to Silvaine Zimmerman and Chris Buchanan from BIM, and to Dave McIntosh from Bowen Waste, all of whom contributed time and effort to the Clean-up. Much appreciated!

Brenda McLuhan

Living Bowen and Bowen Municipality Team Up for a Community Clean Up

2009-07-24T16:11:00.000-07:00

COMMUNITY CLEAN-UP
August 8th, 9 am - noon
Co-sponsored by Living Bowen and the Bowen Island Municipality.

If you've walked along the road lately, you might have noticed the wrappers, bottles, etc that litter our ditches. Let's all pitch in, have some fun, and clean it up!

All you need to bring are: a couple of garbage bags, some gloves and a willingness to help. Start out where you live (or choose another area) & walk toward the cove. Use one bag for garbage & one bag for recyclables. We'll meet at the municipal dock north of the ferry at noon. Bring lunch for a picnic, drinks will be provided. There will be a bin at the dock for our garbage and a sorting area for recyclables.

Let's all do our part to keep Bowen Island clean!

We'll need volunteers to help sort the recyclables and to return the returnables. If you can volunteer, please contact Brenda McLuhan at brendamcluhan (at) hotmail (dot) com or at 4252. We could really use a truck or two!

Thanks everyone.

Whose Best Interest?

2009-06-22T11:52:00.000-07:00

(This letter was published in the Bowen Island Undercurrent newspaper, but was shortened by the editors. Therefore the whole letter is published, here.)

The decision to go ahead with artificial turf field has become a face-saving effort for the parties involved: a school-board who sees $500,000 added to their facilities for free; a school principal who wants to leave his mark; a community services manager and hired consultant, both heavily involved in the local soccer-club, pursuing the option that seems to benefit the soccer club most; a soccer club that aggressively campaigns for the field with some if its members not scaring away from demonizing and insulting critics; and last but not least, a municipal council that didn’t provide proper criteria, not until the very last phase of the project, when it was to late.

We are now adding $375,000 dollars to a joint use agreement of the school facilities, when currently the community cannot use the change-rooms at the gym because BICS has unilaterally decided to use them as storage rooms.

But this is not the only reason why doing this project was iffy from the get go.

To pursue the $125,000 School Community Connections grant without a strategic plan in place, in this case a Bowen Island Recreation Plan, was risky. Yet council didn’t demand it and prioritized the funds for the field regardless, denying more pressing community recreation needs of these funds. After all the $375,000 (from $200,000 in 2007!) can only be spent once. As could be expected, getting the grant became a goal in itself. The risk of creating a rift in the community was taken for granted. The rift is there now, is not going away soon and will become deeper once the trees start falling.

With the trees gone, in summer, the already hot play ground, will be robbed of its shade The new field will only add to the high temperature, making the play ground a no-go zone. A situation only to become worse with rising global temperatures.

So much for joint use by the community. So much for the best interest of our children. And the unanimous tax payer? They can cough up maintenance and replacement costs of the field and pay for use of the field if they choose to do so.

The long overdue recreation strategic plan is due for some time this year. I would almost say, why bother? The damage is already done. It might be better to create a strategic plan to bring this community back together again before thinking about recreation.

Anton van Walraven

Open letter to Mayor Turner and Council of the Municipality of Bowen Island

2009-06-22T01:11:00.000-07:00

(if you would like to add your name to this letter, please contact Living Bowen (email posted at left)

RE: SYNTHETIC GRASS FIELD ON BOWEN
June 22, 2009

We represent many Bowen Island community members who are very concerned by the Council decision on June 8th 2009 to approve the construction of a synthetic grass turf field on Bowen Island Community School grounds.

Respect for the opinions of the greater island community has not been exhibited by our elected council. Your decision goes against every value of conservation and protection that so many people on Bowen expect to be upheld. At this time in history when all information available calls for visionary protection of our environment, here on Bowen Island this irreversible destructive environmental act is about to happen; and right in front of the children.

We feel we have to act now to protest this decision and ask Council to reconsider it.

The project does not meet the requirements specified in your January 26th 2009 Resolution (RES# CW 09-015). We believe that because critical aspects of the synthetic grass field proposal did not meet those requirements, approval of the plan ignores the very real possibility of cost overruns. There was a total lack of scrutiny of the money issues regarding electrical and lighting infrastructure, relocation of tetherball and basketball courts, fill removal and disposal, security, on-going maintenance, debris removal and sanitation, and the eventual field replacement cost and its disposal costs.

More specifically, our concerns have to do with the tendered bid by Cedar Crest whose first quote came in well over the subsequently shaved down version of $254,867.00. We believe it is important to know what was excluded to stay within budget and how might that affect possible cost overruns. An additional concern is that of compromising the quality of synthetic to be used to “stay within budget”. It is also troubling that an additional project-related expense of approximately $20,000 was approved by Council to come from Recreation Surplus and/or Council Contingency funding. We had understood Council’s approval of a maximum expenditure for this project from BIM to be $375,000, regardless of which ‘pot’ the money came from. Will any additional cost overruns be justified in the same manner? We believe that Council should very clearly state its position now on cost overruns, before they occur.

The projected budget for maintenance of the synthetic turf of $5,000 annually may lead to further neglect and degradation of the existing grass field. We were concerned to hear, at the June 8th meeting, that the grass field maintenance budget of $17,000 per year will stretch to cover both the grass and synthetic grass field. We wonder too about further costs and environmental concerns related to maintenance of the synthetic turf such as the use of chemical disinfectants.

The future synthetic field replacement costs (2008 estimate of $85,000 to replace, $20,000 to dispose) may be affected dramatically by either the inability of users to meet the “user fee” projections of $5,000.00 annually, and/or the likely increase in cost of appropriate replacement synthetic turf material. (The formula given was an annual amount of $12,500 being $7,500 from BIM, $5,000 from user fees.)

Because specifics of the turf material were not described in the proposal, the “Health and Safety” stipulation cannot be verified. If this is to be a responsible project, the proposal must meet all the requirements, and especially those to do with Health and Safety.

We are asking Council to re-examine the tender bids in a closed meeting so as to fully understand the choices being made in this project. On June 8th you were repeatedly told by the Project Manager that choices were restricted because of the budget. We ask that Council takes the time to be fully informed of all the immediate and long term costs to this community – financial, environmental, and social.

We therefore ask that Council complete due diligence on this project and we urge Mayor Turner to use your power under the Community Charter to require Council to reconsider its decision of June 8th, and to re-examine this project in light of the concerns raised above.

Thank you for your kind attention.

Sincerely, the Undersigned:

Alan Leigh
Alejandro Frid
Alfred Rahn
Alison Beale
Allene Drake
Amanda Daniell
Ambrose Merrell
Andrew Todd
Alvin Elizabeth De Connick
Andrea Kaufman
Ann Silberman
Anton van Walraven
Asa Hamrin
Berni Claus
Betty Dhont
Beverley J. Rogers
Bill Carr
Blake Voyer
Bob Dicer
Bob Doucet
Bo Lonnquist
Bonney McDowell
Brenda McLuhan
Bridget Knipe
Brita Lonnquist
Bruce Baldwin
Carolyn Neu
Cherilyne B. Olson
Cheryl Ackerman
Christine Miller
Cindy Brown
Colin C. Graham
Dale Adams Segal
Daniela Gifford
Daniel Dekkers
Daniel Heald
David Cameron
David Chamberlain
David Hill
David Koeplin
David McIntosh
David Parkin
Dean Buscher
Debbie Benson
Dee Anderson
Dee MacCarthy
Diana Ray
Donna Lawrence
Doreen Anderson
Edward Sanders
Edna Thomson
Elaine Jones
Elizabeth Burdock
Elizabeth Williams
Elvis Doughtery
Emily van Lidth de Jeude
Eric Sherlock
Erin Little
Frank Kemble
Gale Lyttle
Georgia Nicols
Gerry Halischuk
Gillian Bennett
Gini Grey
Gregory Ronczewski
Greta Smith
Heather Haley
Heather Woodall
Helen Reynolds
Ian Thompson
Irene Wanless
Iris Carr
J.G. Barr
Jack Silberman
James McConnan
James West
Jana Tubinshlak
Jani Carroll
Janice Skeels
Jan Parker
Jayne Pivik
Jean Jamieson
Jeff Derbyshire
Jim Brown
Jim de Zwart
Jlonka Bally-Brown
Joel Voyer
Jonathan Bennett
Jo Lipsey
Judy Balko
Julie Cree
Julie Vik
Kami Kanetsuka
Karen Cannem
Karen Munro
Karen Shea
Karen Wallace
Kelly Schwenning
Kelley Voyer
Kelsey Knipe
Kelly Smith
Ken Smith
Keona Hammond
Kim Sear
Laura Rahn
Laurel Bailey
Leslie L. Olson
Libby Beck
Linda Halischuk
Lisa Barrett
Lisa Shatzky
Louise Escallier
Lyubomir Kamenov
Luke Wang
Luz Budzinski
Lyn van Lidth de Jeude
Lynn Williams
Magdalena Kozicka
Marcel Bally
Margaret Miller
Marion Moore
Marissa Ross
Markus Roemer
Martin Beck
Maurice Anderson
Michelle Livaja
Mika Tubinshlak
Monica Sabathil
Nairn Knipe
Neil Hammond
Neil Reynolds
Niklaus M. Ruloff
P.S. Barr
Pam Dicer
Pat McCready
Paul Beck
Paul Neu
Peg Campbell
Pete Willis
Rob Bailey
Rob Dufty
Robert Semeniuk
Ross Cone
Ruta Yawney
Sabine Schneller
Sam Greenspoon
Sam Knowles
Sarah Pansino
Sarah Voyer
Sharon Haggerty
Shawna Goodrich
Shelagh Hill
Sigurd Sabathil
Stacey Leigh
Steve Livaja
Sue Ritchie
Susan Munro
Susanne Koeplin
Susanne Schloegl
Tanya Voormeij-de Zwart
Teal Ander
Terri Dewar
Thijs Dhont
Tim Frazer
Tim Hausch
Tim O'Hagan
Toni Leverett
Trevor Burdock
Tyler Ruggles
Vikram Dua
Wayne Peter De Connick
Wendy Merkley
Wynn Nielsen
Yogiuday
Yvette Dhont

The Artificial Turf Field Will Be Built This Summer

2009-06-11T23:33:00.000-07:00

I have dragged my feet over reporting this, partly because I don't know what the next step is, and partly because it's just too upsetting.

Last year many of us pledged to camp out under the trees, to tie ourselves to them if need be, to stop the machines turning one of the most prominent tree-groupings of our beautiful community school into a plastic field... but we didn't have to camp out, because our council decided the following (quoted from council minutes, July 28, 2008):

It was Moved and Seconded
That staff continue to investigate and report back to Council in the Fall, 2008 on the option of building an artificial turf field subject to the following conditions:
1. a needs analysis to compare advantages and disadvantages to a grass field;
2. cost not to exceed $375,000;
3. satisfactorily addressing human and environmental health concerns;
4. no cutting of the marked cedar trees;
5. a full public process that presents results back to the community; and
6. if the community remains divided, staff review the process required to have a public opinion poll at the time of the November 2008 election .
CARRIED
Councillors Barrett and Shatzky in Opposition

Since then, the following items have been outrightly ignored or rescinded:
2. exceeded by $20,000.00, as requested by Christine Walker, June 8th, 2009 -- this will come from a different pot, but still funded by tax increases.
3. the field was approved, despite the fact that staff does not yet know which product will be installed, and has gone with the cheapest bidder, as well as shaved much of the work from the plan, to save costs and come in under budget.
4. since the field will be installed in the originally-suggested location, the trees will obviously be cut

So... as you know, a group of dedicated Living Bowen members wrote up the Plan B report, which was handed to council before the June 8th meeting. The item was not discussed, other than to get "thanks" from various councilors, in their approval speeches for the AT field.

All but Nerys Poole voted in favour of proceeding with the AT field, to be completed this summer. Yes, that includes the mayor. I suspect it is a matter of days before the 13 marked trees are cut.

Where do we go from here? I don't know. Your comments and ideas will be gratefully accepted (email livingbowen@gmail.com or comment to this post), and I will share them with the group (anonymously, if you want) via another Living Bowen email.

And what's next for Living Bowen? Some of us are hoping to have some input in the upcoming OCP review. It's a potentially exciting, and potentially very dangerous time on Bowen Island. After the dismantling of the sustainability and trails committees, I believe it is more important than ever for us to gather as a community and ensure that the home we love endures.

Bowen Playing Field: Plan B Options

2009-06-03T11:08:00.000-07:00

Living Bowen first began as a group of people who were concerned about recent island developments, chief among them being the artificial turf playing field planned for BICS. Our intention was not to prevent sports from happening, or facilities being built, but to ensure that the needed facilities be built in a way that suits our vision of a vibrant, rural, natural Bowen Island. We are looking for positive solutions.

The group of Living Bowen members who met to discuss the AT field determined that a "Plan B" was a good idea, since there is a reasonable chance that the artificial turf field bids will come in over budget, and in that case a Plan B will be needed. Then various members of the group, with help from local experts, subsequently worked long and hard to draft the following document (downloadable .pdf), which explores the possibility of either revamping the current grass field at BICS, or creating a covered all-weather playing field in another location.

This document has been forwarded to the mayor and council.

Download the report (.pdf) here:
http://upload.info/jlfu4utu7ea0/Bowen-Playing-Field--Plan-B-Options.pdf

Cape Roger Curtis -- The Green Sheet

2009-04-03T12:09:00.000-07:00

We are opposed to the scale of the proposed CRC Neighbourhood Plan which is far outside the bounds of the OCP and far too large for our island.

We support the Official Community Plan and the upcoming OCP Update.

Please join us at the Bowen Island Community School on Sunday April 5 to tell council that we are for preserving and protecting the unique character of our island home, an island municipality within the islands trust.

Our Message to Council –

Reject the proposed OCP amendment that would see the CRC Neighbourhood Plan incorporated into our Official Community Plan.
Support thoughtful long-term planning that could allow the owners and community to consider development at Cape Roger Curtis as part of island-wide comprehensive planning.
Encourage the owners of CRC to meet the criteria required by our Land Use Bylaw and then work with Council to obtain higher density (between the 58-lot subdivision and the 224 OCP cap) in exchange for amenities.

Cape Roger Curtis Lands and the OCP

1. How the OCP and the Land Use Bylaws Operate
Land use bylaws (zoning and subdivision) restrict the Cape Roger Curtis lands to development lots of a minimum size of 10 acres, subject to various conditions, including appropriate access, water supply, sewage disposal, lot layout, statutory access to the foreshore, and regard for the public interest, as determined by the Approving Officer (a municipal official, not Council). Thus,
the 640-acre CRC property would hold a maximum of 64 lots, but actually fewer, due to the requirement for dedication of roads and public access.

The Official Community Plan (OCP) is a conceptual plan for the entire island, which designates the CRC property for potential increase in density above the land use bylaws. Under the OCP, property owners may apply to change the land use bylaws to permit greater density, however, such changes are expected to produce public benefits (generally called amenities) that are commensurate with the additional density sought.

2. The Current CRC Development Capability
The development range for the CRC property under the OCP is somewhere between the less than 64 lots allowed by the land use bylaws, and a maximum of 224 lots, which could be permitted with maximum amenities provided by the developer.

3. The Current CRC Proposal
The current proposal “CRC Neighbourhood Plan” is not an application to change the land use bylaws, nor is it a proposal for actual development. It is a proposal to change the OCP to allow drastically increased development on the CRC property when a rezoning application is made some time in the future.

The key point: The proposed OCP amendment, if approved, dramatically increases the OCP density cap on the property from 224 units to 666 units plus an 80-room inn, and likely significantly increases the property value. The community gets no amenities until an actual rezoning occurs, when legally binding requirements for promised amenities such as parks, trails, restrictive covenants, etc. can be secured.

This was prepared on behalf of a growing number of citizens on Bowen Island concerned
about the future of CRC, by the following subset of the 650 plus for Bowen petition:

Judy Balko, DG Blair Whitehead, Martin Clarke, Leah Cline, Pam Dicer, Peter Drake, Billi Gowans, Mal Hoskin, Richard Helm, Will Husby, Jean Jamieson, Andrea Kaufman, Rosemary Knight, Mary McDonagh, Ross McDonald, Brenda McLuhan, Wynn Nielsen, Susan Alexander Osler, Owen Plowman, John Rich, Kim Rich, Lisa Shatzky, Janice Skeels, Murray Skeels, Deb Thomson, Ian Thomson

Cape Roger Curtis -- 58 Lots not a Reality

2009-04-03T12:05:00.000-07:00

Why CRC Can’t Hold 58 Lots.
Cape Roger Curtis is currently zoned to allow for 10 acre lots but it must be subdivided, with the approval of the Approving Officer, who has the discretion to approve or reject the application on grounds set out in the Land Title Act, including (among other things) that it is not in the public interest.

An application to subdivide the land into 60 lots was made on September 7, 2004 but revised to 58 lots by the developers in September 2006 with few changes.

Fact: Non-compliance with Public Interest
The Approving Officer issued a Preliminary Layout Review on July 7, 2006 which was highly critical of the application. One of the many points of criticism was that it did not comply with Council’s public interest statement for the land, which consists of the following points:

a. Conserving the majority of the coastline for eco-system protection;
b. Where there are no adverse ecological impacts, develop public, waterfront, walking trails along the majority of the coastline, connecting to the cross-island greenway;
c. Environmental protection of the land including environmentally sensitive areas and rare species;
d. Clustering of homes and any other structures in any new development to reduce land disturbance, maximize green space and the opportunity for trails, and facilitate transportation alternatives;
e. Minimizing and mitigating any negative impacts from any Cape Roger Curtis development on the adjacent neighbourhoods and on the Bowen Island community as a whole.

The Approving Officer also concluded that the application did not “comply with the overall
vision and specific policies of the OCP”.

Fact: Lot Frontage contravenes Land Use Bylaw
Thirty-eight of the 60 lots did not meet minimum frontage requirements, required by the Land Title Act. Thus, a significantly different lot configuration will be required which will reduce the number of 10-acre-minimum lots that can be delivered.

Fact: Individual well water
The PLR also identified that water may be a limiting factor, based on the lack of success of deep well drilling in similar geological areas on the south side of Bowen Island.

Fact: Two access roads are not available
The PLR stated that it was a requirement that this subdivision be served with two access points. Whitesails Drive, Cromie Road, and an extension of Thompson Road past Fairy Fen are the only identified possible access points. The BC Integrated Land Management Bureau has denied access via the Fairy Fen route. An extension of Cromie Road would cross a municipal park.
Considerable public opposition has been expressed to the use of Whitesails Drive.

Fact: Public beach access required.
Section 75(1)(c) of the Land Title Act requires that a 20 meter wide public access be provided every 400 meters for a subdivision of this type.

Fact: The Coastal Bluffs will be protected.
The PLR required that: “A biophysical report will need to be prepared to identify the presence of coastal bluff habitat. Based upon the findings of the report, a restrictive covenant will be required to protect this habitat”.

Conclusion:
Much is being made of the 58 lot subdivision as the “scary” alternative, but the reality is that he 58 lots won’t fly. Given all the problems with the subdivision application, a probable scenario
goes like this:

58 lots gets eroded to 53...to 45...to... as a result of the requirement to satisfy the statutory deficiencies identified in the PLR and the obligation of the Approving Officer to uphold the public interest;
the revised subdivision plan does not deliver the necessary desired return on investment due to the reduction in lots available and increased cost of compliance with the PLR;
it is clear to the developer that a better return may be achieved by negotiating with the Municipality;
the developer enters into a comprehensive planning process with the municipality to balance community amenities and development scale.

These amenities and that development scale must fit our community. The amenities in the
existing CRC plan might be nice to have, but they come with a huge price in terms of
development and disruption to the Cape as well as to the rest of the island. Let’s start with the
reality of existing zoning, and allow more, smaller lots if the developer provides the amenities
that are needed – those that will preserve the greatest amount of land possible while leaving the
smallest footprint possible. And let’s put seniors and affordable housing in the Cove, where it
belongs.

The ecology of Cape Roger Curtis is unique and deserving of protection. So is our community.
Let’s protect both.

Brenda McLuhan

Welcome!

2009-02-02T12:14:00.000-08:00

Living Bowen is a communication method for those wishing to bring about positive change in our rural island community. We intend to provide our members with a means of communication for projects they may be involved with.

A note on the logo... look familiar?
No, it's not the image from "that" t-shirt so many of us wore in the early 80's, but happily, our logo is obviously inspired by it.