Last week I requested and was granted of a copy of the PLR (preliminary layout review) for Cape Roger Curtis. This is the Municipality’s response to the CRCJV (Cape Roger Curtis Joint Venture) subdivision application. The PLR is a carefully constructed document that does much to clarify the disconnect between the developer’s expectations and the community’s.
But, first a little background. Cape Roger Curtis is 640 acres of hiking trails, beaches, a lighthouse and fabulous views that is near and dear to the hearts of generations of Bowen Islanders. It has been treated as public property for so long that the public is not about to let it be carved up into personal fiefdoms without a serious battle. Fortunately for the owners, there are laws that protect their rights to the land no matter what the public perception may be. Unfortunately for the owners they must comply with the conditions of the PLR before they can do any significant development.
The subdivision application proposed the creation of 60 ten acre lots; however the PLR notes that 14 of the lots (5 of them waterfront) include watercourses that will have to be dedicated to the Crown. This will make many of them smaller than ten acres and necessitate reconfiguring the plan.
The application proposes 29 waterfront lots; however these are very narrow and deep, touching on roadways that can’t service the building sites. The PLR notes that 38 of the 60 lots do not meet the 10% road frontage requirement. The first phase of the development would be 10 lots with 8 of these serviced by a single common driveway. The PLR notes that this would not be acceptable.
The application proposes public access to three waterfront areas. One is the viewpoint north of the old Sun Newspaper Summer Camp for delivery boys. South of that is the small beach that most visitors to the Cape know so well and then there is access to the lighthouse itself. The PLR notes that access is to be provided every 400 meters. By my calculations this would anticipate another 5 access points. Public access may also be required to one or more of the unnamed creeks on the property. The application makes no mention of public trails; however the PLR points out that numerous existing trails should be preserved.
The owners already have permission to put in a driveway from Whitesails Drive to halfway across their property to service a single dwelling. The PLR notes that this driveway does not align with the roads proposed in the subdivision proposal so it could not be used for future access to lots created. I know that this isn’t a big issue to most of us but to the people of Tunstall Bay this “driveway” has been a major cause for concern.
The above are just some of the technical issues. With requirements such as these you never know how many the developer anticipated and is ready to accommodate; however the PLR goes on to discuss issues that are not so easily incorporated into the plan.
The application includes an entry point from the Crown lands at the end of Thompson Road and the PLR makes this entry point a condition of ultimate approval. This access road runs near the area referred to as Fairy Fen. The Islands Trust Conservancy noted the ecological value of this area so the developer must convince the Crown Lands people that their access road doesn’t create any problems for the Fairy Fen.
The PLR says that while the proposed subdivision meets the density requirements of the Official Community Plan (OCP) it does not comply with the overall vision and specific policies of the OCP. It goes on to point out that the OCP favours cluster development that leaves green spaces for both common and private neighbourhood use. The PLR speaks to the fact that Municipal Council has adopted a statement of public interest in regards to this area. While this statement does not bind the Approving Officer, she will have to decide whether the final plan for subdivision is contrary to the public interest and failure of the developer to comply with Council’s public interest statement “will be a factor or consideration in making that decision.”
As I said earlier this is a carefully worded, well crafted document that my paraphrasing does not do justice to. On the one hand it is the velvet glove on an iron fist but on the other it does propose areas of potential compromise. It is an invitation to the developer to come back to the table with a more considered and sensitive proposal, because this one is not going to fly.
Post a Comment