Lantzville OCP Public Hearing (Sept. 14/05) Written Submission

Mayor and Council,
This whole Official Community Plan process was flawed from the beginning. From the rush to update the OCP by an interim Council for a brand, new Municipality since only the Regional Context Statement needed to be updated within two years of incorporation (a deadline which we have missed), the decision supported by at least the Chief Administrative Officer and the Mayor to “start from scratch”, which meant that those familiar with the current OCP had just lost their ‘point of reference’ and would now have to read and understand the new OCP from ‘cover to cover’ and critical statements such as “the residents are the final arbiters of community values” were left out. The appointment of a Steering Committee, using a selection criteria which we have asked for the details of but have not received an answer, which resulted in two of the members living within four houses of each other and four other members on the same street within a block of each other, leaving people like us who live in a fairly large suburban area without a representative and, finally, the replacement of two of the members more than half way through the process.
As the OCP moved towards the draft stage, the process became extremely hard to follow. We have seen four, different drafts and that has created an onerous amount of effort just to keep up with the changes. For those with fast internet access and large computer monitors, it may have been manageable but for the many, like us, with dial-up and/or a smaller monitor and, especially those with no internet access at all, it was anything but easy. From the second to the third draft, the changes were highlighted in yellow (shaded on the printed copy) but that ceased and residents were left to individually contact the District office to enquire as to what the changes were from the previous draft. The maps were a whole other thing – the District didn’t have a colour printer capable of printing that size of paper so we were left with a mixture of black & white cross-hatching and viewing the maps on whatever monitor one had and trying to ‘zoom in’ on sections and then trying to remember what you had just seen. When this soon became unworkable, either because there were too many maps and/or too many questions or if you simply didn’t have internet access, one had the choice of visiting the District office M-F, 8:00 – 4:30 and having a staff member show you up to the Council chambers, where the maps were kept. If you were able to attend one of the Open Houses, you would see the maps there but, unfortunately, there wasn’t an ‘Open House’ after each draft.
So, when Councillor and OCP Steering Committee co-chair Susan Crayston stood up at a recent Town Hall meeting and asked “who had read the OCP”, she really shouldn’t have been surprised by the response. It is the District’s job to make sure that as many people as possible were able to read and understand the Plan.
Now our specific concerns with the ‘Final’ Draft OCP, which is the subject of this Public Hearing:
- the densities in the proposed OCP are similar in most respects to those contained in the current OCP. However, one of the things which was widely felt to be wrong with that document is those same densities. Over 500 people twice turned out to reject the Lantzville Projects’ rezoning based on the included densities and then a reduced ‘75%’ version. The development which was ultimately approved was at just over half of the density contained in the OCP. Densities and ‘bonusing’ are all about trade-offs and the question for we residents is, how much should we need to give to get the things we want? The District has been asked, on several occasions, to provide specific justifications for their version of these trade-offs but, so far, all we have heard from them is generalizations.
In terms of a specific example, the proposed OCP offers to give the ‘Ware Road’ landowners up to 100 ‘free’ density units if they build a seniors’ care facility, something which didn’t even rate a mention in the density comparison chart in ‘Colin’s Comments #3’ [note: Colin is Colin Haime, Lantzville’s Mayor]. There is no disputing that a modest amount of assisted/extended care would be good for Lantzville but, with area developers regularly building those types of facilities without any incentive other than the opportunity to sell/rent them, why should we be giving anything at all?! Also, the ‘bonusing’ construct is a form of ‘double-dipping’ in that, by providing the amenity that earns the bonus, the remaining amount of land is reduced so that the total units now need to be packed onto a smaller piece of property.
- the extensive community survey conducted in the spring of last year and completed by well over 500 people said ‘No’ to density bonusing by a 269/159 margin, yet it is an integral component of this Plan. They also said ‘No’ to ‘cluster housing’ by an even larger majority of 306/160, yet it is supported by this Plan. We agree with the Mayor when he said that you can’t take each survey question in isolation but how does the desire for more natural/wildlife park areas and walking/hiking trails translate into a plan to give developers up to 3.5 units/ha (1.4 units/acre) more density if they provide up to four times the required improved parkland, pathways and buffers. Wouldn’t it be more in keeping with the wishes of the majority of residents to cut this base density to, say 6, and offer a bonus of up to 1.2 units for another 5% of those amenities? Remember, if anything like the Foothills proposal proceeds, the District will be getting more natural/wildlife land than we will know what to do with.
- the survey also said that what people valued most about Lantzville was the ‘semi-rural’ atmosphere, natural beauty of the area and large lots, family homes. This Plan will seriously compromise all of these. Why would we be looking at a proposed OCP that would allow lots down to ¼ acre in size on the larger parcels in most of Lantzville and down to something like 5200 sq. ft. (1/8 acre) in the Village Comprehensive Development Area, which our Mayor claims is around the ‘average’ lot size in north Nanaimo?
- we are concerned about the support for secondary suites in detached homes in the Village Comprehensive Development Area. This will effectively increase the density even more, something which also didn’t rate a mention in the density comparison chart in ‘Colin’s Comments #3’ and will likely result in traffic/parking problems and services billing inequities.
- there are few specifics with respect to the commercial area behind the existing Village Commercial Core as to how big it can be and what can be included and how big it can be in the Foothills
- the Mayor has repeatedly said that these are all just numbers and the landowners will have to prepare detailed Comprehensive Development Plans which will have to address all issues to Council’s satisfaction and that the Public will have a chance for input at that time. The problem is, once a developer sees the numbers in this OCP, they will be thinking ‘firm’ and it will be very hard to move them off those numbers, just like it must have been very difficult for the volunteer, lay members of the Steering Committee to argue for moving away from the numbers presented in the first draft of the Plan.
- given that Foothills Estates could not do what they are proposing to accomplish through our OCP if their property had remained in the Regional District, we are beginning to question our own acceptance of the argument that the reason we needed to include the foothills within our new, municipal boundaries was in order to prevent a future garbage dump/protect our water supply.
- while the new Plan refers to looking at sewage treatment options (‘green’ infrastructure), everything else points towards connecting to Hammond Bay. The District’s application for a Federal/Provincial infrastructure grant refers only to the Greater Nanaimo Water Pollution Control Centre and one of the investors in the Foothills project told me that we would be ‘crazy’ not to hook up to the ‘big pipe’ at our border. We think we can guess what form of sewage treatment they will be supporting for their development!
- we do NOT support the prohibition on ‘neighbourhood’ sewage treatment facilities since we believe that this severely limits our ability to tailor solutions to any liquid waste issues to the specific situation. What would we rather have, a state-of-the-art treatment facility servicing several households with failed and ‘unrepairable’ septic systems or the continued release of minimally treated sewage while we wait for municipal sewers to reach that area?
- Sec. 11.13 states that “the District may undertake a study to determine the practicality and extent of Development Cost Charges (DCC’s) that might be applied to new development”. Since this Plan contemplates substantial new development, which will not only strain the existing infrastructure, but require additional facilities supplied by the District, why wouldn’t Council be moving forward post-haste to put DCC’s in place prior to all this development?
- this Plan has put us in conflict with the Regional District over growth management issues, which are currently unresolved and could threaten its adoption
Council’s role is not to push your own Agenda on the residents you serve, but rather to identify problems facing the community, develop a range of solutions and then fully informing the taxpayers of the pros, cons and costs of each and letting them decide! You need to be on good terms with both the large-parcel landowners and the average resident. This proposed OCP states that “the character of the community is also based on a common set of values and principles... an orientation toward cooperation and communication, and a willingness to listen” – we truly wish that that could be so!