Bowen Bulletin

This week’s column is a summary of a submission I made to the OCP Update Steering Committee

This letter hopes to challenge some of the basic assumptions surrounding OCP density, density trading and future zoning.

The first assumption is that our OCP is our vision, as a community, of where we wish to go. The development densities shown on the planning map are the densities we aspire to. This assumption is false. The densities shown for most of the island were incorporated into the 1982 OCP based on a 1976 landscape analysis that provided a rationale for ending the ten acre subdivision freeze imposed in 1974. In other words, in the world of 1982 it was considered more important to establish a rational basis for restricting development rights than it was to build a community vision of the future for the island. In fairness to the people who drafted the 1982 OCP, there was no community consensus and the densities established were a pretty fair compromise.

But that was 28 years ago and it’s time to re-evaluate these numbers. While the proposed density for Snug Cove has gone up, there are areas in watersheds and ecologically sensitive zones that should have their OCP development density reduced or eliminated. While actual subdivision rights are controlled by the Land Use Bylaw (LUB) revised OCP mapping would provide a reasonable rational for density transfers. An owner could sell his LUB density rights to help the community achieve OCP densities that would be based on real needs and a real vision.

The second assumption is that larger properties will eventually be subdivided and then subdivided again into smaller and smaller lots. This is a vision befitting a village that hopes to become a town and then a city. It doesn’t make sense for an island that is mandated to preserve and protect the natural environment for future generations. A mechanism must be found to change this development pattern.

The first requirement of a new subdivision paradigm must be to ensure that those property owners who wish to subdivide their property will achieve profitability comparable with that which could be achieved today. The second requirement should be to ensure that any subdivision respect the stated goals of the Islands Trust. The natural environment must be protected. The third requirement has to be that this subdivision be the last time that the property is divided. Without this assurance we condemn ourselves to a future of constant friction concerning desirable density levels.

Let’s take the example of a 100-acre parcel in a ten-acre zone. Currently each new parcel created would have to be at least ten acres in size, which means that the owner, after creating roads to the new lots, could only hope to get nine parcels to sell. Under current regulations there are conditions relating to how much of the new property boundaries have to abut public roads, how wide those new roads have to be built and a host of other requirements. Some of these requirements could become redundant if the basic rules surrounding subdivisions were changed.

One possible scenario would be a subdivision bylaw that gave this same property owner the right to create ten lots instead of nine. The condition might be that each lot be a maximum of one acre in size. The other ninety acres would be donated to a nature conservancy whose mandate was to retain the dedicated land as open forest. To understand how this might be desirable you have to look at the most likely buyer for a ten-acre piece of land on Bowen. This buyer does not want to own a woodlot and he knows that there is no possibility of earning a living from a ten-acre farm. The target market for this land is somebody who wants privacy, a forest setting and maybe a view. A one-acre lot set in a protected forest works not only for the landowner but also for the wildlife and ambience of the island.

The above is simply an example of a mechanism that could be used to stop the slow but inexorable densification of the island. I do not propose that it is the solution; I propose that this Steering Committee explore options that change our fundamental approach to subdivision.

The last assumption that I would like to address concerns light industrial zoning. As the population grows more local businesses become viable. But this growth depends on demographic milestones. While only 50 types of retail business may be viable with a population of 3,000 people, 100 businesses may be viable when the population hits 4,000. As the number of retail businesses grow the number of support businesses grows as well. While small commercial zoning was appropriate when there were 2,000 of us, it is inadequate today. I am assuming that this update will recognize the need for expanded commercial zoning. However I would like you to look at light industries such as warehousing and large footprint workshops that support these retail stores and the local construction industry. Currently light industrial zoning is virtually nonexistent and over the next five years this lack of planning will create problems. I urge you to recognize in the OCP those parcels of land that would be appropriate for light industrial use.

On June 19 the OCP Update Committee is having an open house to unveil the proposed amendments to our Community Plan.