City of Powell River staff have been directed to look into a large prospective subdivision project in Wildwood.
At the July 11 committee of the whole meeting, Sara Dent made a presentation regarding a 19-acre lot, which she described as mostly forested, between King and Chilco Avenues in Wildwood. She said she was appearing before council regarding a property she identified as PID 011-158-166.
“This is a lot that was zoned RA1, back in the 1960s,” said Dent. “We did a walkaround the block to talk to residents who live directly there. Most of the homes abutting the lot were built in the ’70s.”
Dent said the property owner is the same owner as the Tides, which is where mobile homes are situated, and the Tides manager is also responsible for the 19-acre lot, she added.
“I understand there was an attempt to rezone the lot about a decade or so ago for more motorhomes to go onto it; the neighbourhood came in and said no to the zoning,” said Dent. “Under the existing zoning there is no requirement for community consultation or community discussion on the lot. Effectively, there’s a pending subdivision application and I don’t know what that looks like, but it could be for up to 104, 0.18-acre single-detached houses.”
Dent said there should be a mechanism for consultation and discussion if there is going to be a subdivision development put in.
“Development would significantly impact the quality of life for the residents,” said Dent. “If there’s that level of construction going on, perhaps taking 10 to 20 years, it’s going to mean that people who live there are going to be in a construction zone for that period of time.”
Dent said there is a case for conservation. She said it is a coastal Douglas fir moist maritime bioclimatic zone.
“There are organizations trying to conserve this type of forest,” said Dent. “It’s one of those ecosystems that provides habitat for a huge array of species diversity. If we remove all those trees and put in a bunch of houses, we are going to be losing an ecosystem buffer.”
Dent said under the zoning, the property could be a park. She said council could send a qualified environmental professional to determine if species or ecosystems are at risk.
Walking around the lot, 33 people were spoken with and 32 wanted the property to remain as a forest and park, according to Dent. Only one indicated forest, park or subdivision.
“People are worried about the volume of houses, saying it is too many,” said Dent.
She added that the city needs affordable housing, but the subdivision won’t feature affordable housing.
Dent said the request for a motion from council was to direct staff to discuss with the owner/developer the intent to increase options for alternative development plans. She wondered if land could be swapped with the owner/developer to convert the existing land to parkland and “help Wildwood be awesome.”
Application expected
Councillor George Doubt asked staff if there had been any applications for building permits or rezoning for this piece of property.
Director of planning services Jason Gow said there had been some preliminary discussions with the property owner and a consultant. He said there is an expectation that a subdivision application will be submitted.
Doubt asked if a city council resolution or community consultation would not be required if subdivision of the land matches current zoning.
Gow said it was an accurate statement. He said if the application comes in and does not require a variance, there isn’t any kind of communication between the applicant and council.
Interim chief administrative officer Tom Day said the most appropriate measure is to take the information that had been received during the delegation and create a staff report for council’s perusal.
Councillor Jim Palm asked if there was any truth to 104 lots being permissible if subdivision was to proceed. Gow said the 104 figure is when the 19 acres is taken and divided by the minimum 730-square-metre lot size. He said that number does not take into account roads and other features.
Doubt made a motion that staff come back to council with a report on the current and future uses of the property in question, and the implications of the delegation’s requests. The motion carried unanimously.
