Citizens for a Livable Cranbrook Society provides grassroots leadership and an inclusive process, with a voice for all community members, to ensure that our community grows and develops in a way that incorporates an environmental ethic, offers a range of housing and transportation choices, encourages a vibrant and cultural life and supports sustainable, meaningful employment and business opportunities.

Saturday, April 20, 2013

Proposed Jim Smith Lake Subdivision

The following is a copy of the presentation made by Brian Passey to the RDEK Planning meeting on April 4th 2013, 3:30pm in the Board Room.  On Tuesday April 23rd at 7:00pm there will be a Public hearing at the RDEK building to further inform and receive information.

 Board opinion after the presentation below was such that it appeared the majority of board members were in favour of the proposed subdivision, enabling more one hectare lots to be developed in the vicinity of Jim Smith Lake.  This matter is of grave concern to many area residents as it appears to be in contravention of existing Official Community Plans for the RDEK and the City.  

Letters concerning this issue can be sent to Rob Gay c/o Tracey Van de Wiel
tvandewiel@rdek.bc.ca

The public is invited to attend this Public Hearing on Tuesday April 23rd at 7:00pm


I am here as a representative of the Jimsmith Lake Community Association to address changes to the proposed by laws 2427 and 2428.

The introduction to Area C Official Community Plan (By law 2255) states that the OCP reflects the vision of the community, and as such, it states that it is the official position of the Regional District Board.  I realize that the OCP is a guideline and it is riddled with loopholes so that the official position can be very flexible.  However I intend to demonstrate that there is a limit to the flexibility offered in certain cases and that the intent of the proposed by-law changes goes beyond that limit.

Despite the unanimous recommendation, twice, of the Area C Advisory Planning Commission against 1 hectare lots, the planning staff have made a unilateral decision to allow this developer to plan for 15 of the 17 lots to be less than 2ha on this greenfield acreage.

This is justified by planning staff on the basis of “land use efficiency”. But there are other factors that make up the overall efficiency of land use, such as water run off, wildlife needs, lake habitat, recreational pursuits etc. These are less concerned with such a semi-urban outlook as higher residential density but tend to decrease residential density for a higher total efficiency..  

Staff are talking not about land use efficiency, but merely economic efficiency.

I have heard the argument that because there exists a large amount of uninhabited Crown land relative to available private land, we should fill the private land to make up for it.  There is plenty of land for wildlife and trees, the suggestion goes, and so we can put as many people as feasible regardless of other uses into the rest. This philosophy is plain wrong because this is not about the economics of development. It is about retaining our rural environment.

Other consequences of almost doubling the residential density over normal rural densities of 2 ha. are numerous, they include;
·       Increased traffic density on Lakeview Drive will impact painted turtle and human safety
·       Increased greenhouse gas emissions
·       Increased fire hazards
·       Increased pressure on birds and ungulates and their predators
·       Increased potential for high nutrient water to run into the lake
·       A precedent will be established to develop any large Rural Resource acreage in Area C into 1ha lots if this proposal is approved.
·       On the basis of economics alone there will be little incentive for developers to stick to 2 ha lots in the future, if staff continue to encourage them.
·       And others

The OCP makes the point in a couple of places that RR-1 (estate) developments are intended for rural infill, not greenfield developments.  This is board policy. However the planners don’t seem to recognize this. In OCP clause 3.1 it says smaller lot sizes are permitted where an infill need is identified and in 3.2 it says R-Res designation recognizes potential for rural infill development.  Since this is board policy we can assume that neither RR-1 estate nor R-RES designations apply in this case under consideration.

With a total of 43 new lots, including these proposed ones, at the West end of Jimsmith Lake, approximately 10 to12km from this office, gas emissions can be reduced by creating 2 ha lots. Smaller lots can be developed nearer town.

Even though the OCP states that greenfield development is not generally accepted we have to recognize that it is unlikely that subdivision of private land will be prevented in the Rural Resource areas.  However under no circumstances does the OCP recognize the Estate designation.

In other words the RR 1 designation in bylaw 1402, Cranbrook Zoning, cannot be applied to a greenfield development, according to board policy.  The smallest lot size that can be used for residential greenfield development is RR-2, medium holding.

The fact that significantly smaller lots exist in the village of Jimsmith Lake cannot stand as a precedent because the subdivisions were largely created in the 1960’s and early 70’s as summer cottages.  This was a time when there was less awareness of biological diversity and the heavy impact small residential lots have on land.  Even though these are economically efficient from a planning point of view, in this day and age they are entirely unacceptable.

No longer in Jimsmith area do we have moose and elk which were common at one time.  Also we no longer have crayfish, trout and many invertebrates that used to be abundant in the lake.  In addition to a loss of diversity, we also suffer from an excess of submerged plant growth in the form of Canadian Milfoil and other thick growing plants, due to an excess of nutrients in the runoff water.

 The 1 ha lots in the neighbouring subdivision, Soaring Hawk Ridge, provide no precedence either.  It was considered necessary by the board, because under the OCP the area was designated R-Res, and that seems to be justification to make a higher density of population in the environmentally sensitive wetland area.  The actual reason for this is inexplicable, unless economic efficiency overrides overall efficiency of land use.
  However these factors have no bearing on the Daprocida lot since the environmental sensitivities do not require a development permit other than a fire hazard report.

It is not true to suggest that there will be no more subdivisions around the lake.  The private property at the North West corner of DL 2311 will now gain access through this new subdivision.

In summary; 
·       Because the Daprocida lot is currently zoned RR 60 and is a greenfield development with no infill requirements, policy states that rezoning to RR 1, estate, is inappropriate.
·       Popular community opinion is that 2 ha lots are a minimum for rural residential purposes and result in a gentler impact on our valuable rural resources.
·       If this development goes ahead with 1ha lots then a precedent will be established for all greenfield developments to be planned for economic efficiency alone in the future.

We in the Jimsmith Lake Community Association wish to express our understanding of the need for private land to be used for residential development, but do not accept that economic factors alone should override all other considerations. Especially Board Policy.

Specifically we are requesting you to delete any reference to SH, small holding, in bylaw2427 and in bylaw 2428 delete any reference to RR-1 Rural residential (estate) and change Schedule A to reflect this.

    


Jim Smith Lake, Fall


No comments:

Post a Comment