Powell River Regional District directors are once again grappling with a subdivision application for the largest, undeveloped property on Savary Island.
The proposed subdivision divides District Lot 1375, which consists of 133 hectares (330 acres), into four sections of alternate ownership from east to west, following the ruling of a BC Supreme Court judge to divide the property between the owners, the Sahlin family of Washington State and the Nature Trust of British Columbia. This decision is being appealed.
Representatives from Savary Island Land Trust Society (SILTS) and the Sahlin family attended the regional district’s February planning committee to speak about the application. While the approving authority is the ministry of transportation and infrastructure, the application has been referred to the regional district for comment.
Liz Webster, SILTS’ executive director, told directors that the subdivision application is not in the public interest, nor does it serve the public good. “The application is not in line with the principle aim of the Savary Island OCP [official community plan],” she said. “It does not protect groundwater resources, sensitive areas or unique biophysical features from development and it does not provide adequate public access to the shoreline.”
Phil Henderson, a biologist, provided an alternative subdivision proposal that divided the parcel into two lots. The property contains rare coastal dunes and plant species and a large interior forest with veteran trees, Henderson said. “The best chance to conserve them is to protect the largest contiguous area comprising all of the important features,” he said. “In doing so, we’ll help to protect the ecological continuity and integrity.”
Greg Umbach, a lawyer with Blake, Cassels and Graydon LLP, spoke for the Sahlin family. Also present at the meeting were Christopher Sahlin, representing the third generation of the family, Wayne Shwandt and Chris Jackson.
Umbach outlined the history of the Sahlin family’s involvement in the property. “I take some exception to the characterization of the Sahlin family as developers,” he said. “There’s no evidence that they’re developers of this parcel.”
In the early 1980s, Roger Sahlin, the second generation of the family to own the parcel, and David Syre bought the parcel from a company owned by the Sahlin family. They owned the property in common. A proposed subdivision in the 1990s into 10-acre lots did not proceed and in 2000, Syre sold his interest in the property to the Nature Trust. “Roger Sahlin and family were suddenly pushed into an arranged marriage,” Umbach said. “The inference is that the Nature Trust has a different objective than the Sahlin family. I don’t agree with that, because the history doesn’t bear that out. There’s no evidence that they would treat this land any differently than Nature Trust would.”
The Sahlin family has used the property for its own recreation, Umbach said, and there may be some plan in the future to build a house. “There is no plan to divide up into 130 lots.”
Umbach also outlined the factors the judge weighed in his decision and noted he had taken into consideration environmental reports and the property’s ecological values. He emphasized that no construction development was being applied for and the subdivision proposal was based on OCP principles. He urged directors to comment on the application.
After his presentation, Webster pointed out that the Sahlin family was involved in a 1995 proposed subdivision of the property into 90 lots in a gated community.
Electoral Area A Patrick Brabazon said there were three outstanding issues: the ministry’s approving officer is seeking an opinion from government legal authorities about whether the court order for partition constrains him; the ministry of environment’s role in protecting ecological values on the property; and whether the appeal will result in a different legal outcome.
In the end, directors voted to defer further consideration until the March 15 planning committee meeting.
