By a narrow margin, City of Powell River Council gave first three readings to a bylaw that would allow for construction of a six-storey apartment complex between Alberta and Franklin Avenues in Westview.
At the February 1 city council meeting, at issue was the composition of the affordable housing units that would be allocated in the 40-unit rental apartment complex. The developer, Veyron Properties, had offered three micro units and three one-bedroom units for a period of 15 years. In a report from director of planning services Jason Gow, the recommendation was that staff inform the applicant that the proposed terms from the developer do not align with the city’s housing needs assessment and housing implementation plan.
The report suggested the applicant adjust their affordable housing units to two micro units, two one-bedroom units and two two-bedroom units for a term of 25 years.
Councillor George Doubt said the report had the two options in it, the Veyron proposal, and the staff recommendation. He asked which option had been written into the bylaw.
Gow said his understanding was that the committee of the whole, where the matter was previously debated, directed staff to bring Veyron’s proposal to the council meeting for consideration. He said Veyron’s proposal for three micro units and three one-bedroom units was what was written into the proposed bylaw.
Councillor Jim Palm said he was sympathetic to the residents who live above the proposed apartment complex, whose views could be affected by the structure.
“I had a little trouble supporting the six storeys,” said Palm. “I was trying to go for five, but the proponent said that was not an affordable option.
“Staff did a lengthy report and it was well written. I’m not really happy that we are going to raise our hands and give the developer everything he is asking for when staff has been asking for something else. I have some concerns. I won’t be voting in favour of the option on the table.”
Mayor Ron Woznow said there had been extensive conversations on the development.
“In light of the fact we have had a developer that has come to the table to put in front of us the opportunity to create housing, which we all know is dearly needed, at this point, I’m strongly supporting what we agreed to at our previous meeting, and that would be the alternative to put forward at this time,” said Woznow.
Councillor Trina Isakson said the height variance is only worthwhile if there are affordable units. She said there are affordable units in this case, but they are not sufficient. She said, however, that council had to weigh the risk, and if they didn’t approve it, the apartment complex might not get built at all.
Isakson said in the broader context, it is important for developers to have clarity when they enter into a development as to what the cost charges are and other factors. She said she had sympathy for the developer not having that certainty from the outset.
Councillor Cindy Elliott said affordable housing is needed and the developer had come forward in good faith and offered everything the project would support financially.
“He’s let us know that anything else will make the project unviable,” said Elliott. “I’m going to vote in favour. We need housing in our community.”
Doubt said that councillors, at a previous committee of the whole meeting, had voted in the majority to go with the developer’s option as opposed to an alternative that was proposed by staff.
“I voted for that for a reason, because I thought it was appropriate,” said Doubt. “We need rental housing and we need more affordable housing than we have. We have a developer that is willing to build it.”
Councillor Rob Southcott said there had been negotiations required regarding this project because there is a lack of legislation governing the composition of affordable housing units in a development. He asked if it was possible to make two-bedroom units small enough and still have the development feasible financially from the developer’s standpoint.
Gow said that would be a question for the developer.
Woznow said he did not want to be sitting at the council chamber in the future, hearing the need for this type of housing.
“We’ve been around this issue a number of times and I firmly believe that in order to meet some of our housing needs, we should continue and do what we did at the last discussion, and approve the bylaw,” said Woznow.
The bylaw’s first three readings passed by a four to three margin, with Woznow, Doubt, Isakson and Elliott in favour.
Join the Peak's email list for the top headlines right in your inbox Monday to Friday.
