A local developer is urging council to reject a proposed rezoning of land in north Crumpit Woods area of Valleycliffe.
The rezoning would result in confusion and unintended development and sterilize the development potential of the land, says Amy Fast, the president of Diamond Head Land Company Ltd.
District is proposing to rezone land north of Crumpit Woods in Valleycliffe from the current zoning of RS-1 to RM-5, which allows low-rise apartment and commercial buildings.
Fast said the company was surprised to hear about the district decision, considering that the company had been working with the district in good faith towards a Sub Area Plan for the property, which would include a range of unit types and densities.
Fast said it was unclear how this newly proposed change was consistent with OCP policies and objectives.
“The residential density in the proposed zone equates to very large low-rise apartment dwellings and commercial use only. This single form of housing will not offer a range of housing options for residents of all ages, it will not be affordable, nor will it maximize the development potential of the land,” she said.
Fast said the company had been clear of its intentions to work on a Sub Area Plan and that a single family subdivision was not intended for the property.
Fast said it was also understood that any approving officer could reject a single-lot subdivision solely on the base of an OCP policy and community interest.
“It is still unclear to DHLC why the District feels the proposed zoning amendments are necessary, given the OCP requirement of an adopted Sub Area Plan prior to development,” Fast added.
She said the company had in good faith agreed for a no-build covenant to ensure no development went ahead before a Sub Area Plan approval.
However, since the offer, district staff have required additional language in the covenant that would encumber the property in such a dramatic way that it would be difficult to know when it would be discharged and when the company could use the property, according to Fast.
Due to the additional requirements by staff, the original intent of the covenant had diminished, she said.
She is now calling upon the council to reject first and second reading.
“The proposed zoning amendment process has not allowed both parties to work together constructively and will not result in a comprehensive plan that is good for our community,” she said.
