"Pave Paradise and Put Up a Parking Lot"?!?

Since it has been the past practise of the District of Lantzville to only include in the minutes comments made at a Public Hearing if they were made verbally and, in order to keep 'personalities' out of it, I chose to make only a written submission, following are my comments for the Public Hearing (May 29/06) on the Watt Ventures application to rezone a piece of Lantzville land adjacent to their Nanaimo 'big-box' mall to build a parking lot.

Mayor and Council,
District of Lantzville Amendment Bylaw 60.6, 2006 Hearing Submission (all $ figures are estimates)

This really is a ‘NO-brainer. In order to change zoning there has to be a clear, overwhelming public benefit and this proposal doesn’t even come close to passing that test.

1. we do not ‘owe’ Watt Ventures anything. They paid to extend Lantzville Road (including the purchase of this property) in exchange for getting commercial zoning on the Jeffs’ property (which increased the assessed value by 2 ½ times). We’re way more than even!!!
2. this property is essential in establishing a buffer between us and the heavily commercialized Woodgrove Regional Shopping centre, something several of you told us was a major reason why we should vote to incorporate. At the time the City of Nanaimo was taking the Jeffs’ property, you said there was nothing you could do. This time you CAN stop the loss of yet another opportunity to provide a buffer area between us and that commercial juggernaut.
3. a parking lot, even a so-called public, parking lot is not permitted in a Residential (R) zone by our previous or new OCP – it would require an amendment and there is still a year and a half to go in the amendment moratorium. Parking is NOT within the definition of a “public utility”.
4. the OCP Steering Committee discussed this proposal and rejected it as being inappropriate.
this has all been contrived in an attempt to obtain approval for an 81 stall parking lot so that Watt Ventures can add a reported 557 m2 (6,000 ft2) to their mall next door, which would increase their profit by $30,000/yr. No matter how you ‘spin’ it, this is a commercial use!
5. Lantzville residents haven’t asked for and don’t need more parking in this area and how would they ensure we get priority anyway (are they going to enforce it – the applicant declined to institute measures which would have gone a long way towards preventing the dangerous situation which now exists with people pulling “u-ies” and driving through/around barriers to access their mall from Mary Ellen)? Very few Lantzville residents would use this parking in conjunction with Pioneer Park and, in any event, if there is additional parking required, then surely it is up to the City of Nanaimo, not Lantzville, to provide it. If the city would just spend a few thousand dollars and extend the main backstop to stop foul balls from entering the existing parking along Shook Road, that would immediately result in 20-25 more, usable parking spaces.
6. it matters not that the property stays in Lantzville if it is to be used for a Nanaimo, commercial use. Previously, the proponents had said it was “for the primary purpose of providing parking for the employees of the commercial development” – which is it?
7. in exchange for this, they are prepared to let Lanzvillagers park there first, put in some landscaping ($15,000), build a short path ($10,000) and construct a “Welcome to Lantzville’ sign ($7,000). On the subject of landscaping, have a look at the current, planted ‘buffer’ along the District’s boundary next to the mall – not exactly what our previous OCP had in mind, is it?
8. in this part of the world, “highest and best use” is simply a euphemism for commercial development and so has no relevance here.
9. Watt Ventures has NOT YET acquired the surplus 714 m2 from the Ministry of Transportation, which begs the question as to whether Council can rezone land that an Applicant doesn’t own.
10. there is nothing new that they have proposed that has addressed anything which was raised as a concern at the PIM, instead they have even failed to include their previous offer to pay Nanaimo-level taxes on this commercial use.
11. they have ignored the concerns which were raised about the viability of the introduced vegetation, the durability of the porous, paved surface and the potential for oils and glycols to plug the drainage channels.
12. we need to get away from this idea that, because we can’t come up with a better idea for making use of the current zoning, we must accept ‘dubious’ rezoning applications such as this – it is not our job to do that. It is up to the developer and his consultants to come up with a use under the existing zoning or, in the alternative, a rezoning proposal which provides an overwhelming public benefit. This would have been made easier if Watt Ventures had left the trees on the property instead of clear-cutting everything except the covenant area in a pique soon after the PIM (now they will have to settle for building that landscape berm along the edge of the Island [where traffic is much lighter, not Inland Island] highway. They must feel that, since it worked for the Jeffs’ property, it will work here too.
13. Watt Ventures would be paying $18,500/yr to Nanaimo in taxes on the new addition but only about $2,500/yr to Lantzville for the parking lot. This is only about a thousand dollars per year more than the District would realize from a residential-type development on the property.
14. it is imperative that council begin now to establish the ‘tone’ for future development along this stretch of east Lantzville Road or the pressure for some form of commercial development along the ‘strip’ will become unrelenting. A residential-style development would do that.

Here's Those Missing Comments From the Watt Ventures PIM

On Tuesday morning, May 23rd, I sent an email to Twyla Graff, Director of Corporate Administration for the District of Lantzville pointing out a deficiency in the information on the District's website concerning the Public Hearing on Monday, May 29th at 7:00 pm upstairs in the Legion and regarding the Watt Ventures parking lot proposal. Specifically, I wrote: while the minutes of the Public Information Meeting of March 14/05 indicate that my "prepared statement... is attached hereto and forms part of these minutes", it isn't, and therefore, doesn't. Hopefully, this correction can be made quickly and with minimal loss of the residents' ability to be fully informed regarding important issues such as this in their community.
On Wednesday afternoon, having checked whether or not the correction had been made, I attended the District offices and enquired as to when it might actually happen, to which Ms. Graff replied that it was just a matter of finding the time to actually make the change. Now, since Ms. Graff is currently filling all three senior management positions of the District (Chief Administrative Officer, Director of Corporate Services and Director of Financial Services), I can understand that she is busy but, unfortunately, the Public Hearing is now only 3 days away and the public has a right to see all the comments made at the PIM. Therefore, what follows is my prepared statement, along with the essence of any responses which may have given to my questions.

Questions for Watt Ventures
Let me begin by saying that it is great to finally have an opportunity to address the developers of the Jeffs’ property and to be able to ask you some questions about yourselves and your plans. I also want to thank my fellow Lantzville residents for coming out tonight and I know that you will value their input and leave here tonight with no doubt of how we feel about our community and those who would seek to negatively impact our semi-rural lifestyle. As you can see [hold up 2” thick file folders], I have been following this issue with more than a passing interest for some time. Maybe someone should be asking the question as to why a private individual has to go to such lengths just to see to it that due process is followed and the public’s wishes respected.
Just so I, and my fellow Lantvillagers, are clear about how we arrived at this point, I want to paint a picture for you and ask that you comment on any inaccuracies that you perceive when I am finished. Your involvement seems to have begun in early 2002 with a highly biased and inaccurate newspaper article titled, “Vacant parcel caught in land use limbo“, written by Mr. Wyng Chow, who coincidently, had previously written a ‘promotional’ piece for the paper about your exotic Vancouver nightclub, Brandi’s Lounge. Even though Mr. Jeffs already had a real-estate agent, Duncan Watt became a land consultant for him and now you own the land. While Lantzville was studying incorporation, you were talking to various senior government officials about prospects for getting this piece of Lantzville property into the City. However, when your and Mr. Cattrall’s property were quietly excluded from the Referendum boundaries, you raised a “fuss”, since you felt that your property was now in a no-man’s-land (“land use anomalies”, I believe you called them). You then quite disingenuously beseeched the City of Nanaimo to take you in, which they then “pulled out all the stops” to accomplish, possibly motivated by your $100,000 donation.

Duncan Watt responded by saying that they didn't disingenuously do anything. He basically didn't dispute anything else that I had said. While seeming to take offence at my comments, Cam Watt didn't rebut my statement except to say that they hadn't raised a "fuss".

Questions for the District/RDN How was this complex mechanism (easements, cross-easements and covenants) for bypassing the requirement for an Official Community Plan amendment arrived at? Is the term “public use” in the enabling section of our OCP not usually reserved for things like libraries, schools, hospitals, etc.? To your knowledge, has it been used before to refer to a private, commercial parking lot, albeit one where we (the Lantzville public) will supposedly have priority? Who made the determination that this proposal met the intent of the ‘public use’ designation in our OCP?

Robert Lapham, District Planner, responded by saying that he wasn't specifically aware of any other place it had been done but that covenants and easments were used all the time by land use planners. After repeatedly not answering the final question asked and being asked again, he allowed that it was ultimately Council which would have made that decision.