Former Mayor Greg Gardner wants the council to be cautious about rezoning decisions, especially rezoning land parcels in Valleycliffe and Garibaldi Highlands.
District of Squamish is proposing to rezone land in Crumpit Woods and Newport Ridge area from RS-1 to RM-5.
The RS-1 zone allows single-family homes, while the RM-5 zoning allows for a low rise apartments or neighbourhood commercial up to a maximum height of eight metres
Gardner says the rezoning approach would be unfair to landowners and would harm the district’s reputation in the development and financial sectors.
Gardner also says the areas are not compatible with high density uses, and will not be “walkable” as they are located far away from commercial areas. He also questions the timing of public hearing.
You can read his full letter below.
—
I write to provide public input into the omnibus proposed zoning amendments going to Public Hearing on July 28, 2020. I note that there are seven very significant proposals. Most would result in dramatic downzoning and the associated reduction in value of the subject lands. Some are sweeping in nature and difficult to analyze. Given the volume and time constraints, I have been unable to review each of them in detail. I will only comment on one of the seven proposals. Rezoning of Large Greenfield Properties from RS-1 to RM-5.
Since the mid 2000’s, the District of Squamish has been recognized as a leader in adopting “smart growth” planning principles. While there are many definitions of “smart growth”, some of the principles include striving for: compact and walkable communities; a diversity of housing choices; communities that have a sense of place; providing a variety of transportation options; mixed land uses with employment opportunities near residences; avoidance of development in environmentally sensitive areas; predictable, fair and cost effective development planning; and community and stakeholder collaboration in development decisions. These principles are consistent with the need to minimize carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel space heating and transportation systems by mitigating urban sprawl.
Over the past five years I have become concerned with decisions that appear to misapply these principles. There are a number of examples. Perhaps most relevant would be the last council’s decision to, at the developer’s request, reduce the density on the 53 acre Waterfront Landing site from about 1600 units to 900 units. This is an area designated Downtown in our OCP. It could have been the very definition of a compact community within walking distance of most services and of employment. Instead, what is being built is a relatively low density (for a downtown location) consisting of a high percentage of large townhomes. Undoubtedly, the developer requested lower density because it could achieve a greater return on investment in a shorter time. However, we as a community, have sacrificed a perfect location for a compact, high density walkable development with urban vibrancy and increased pressure for urban sprawl.
The proposed zoning amendment would rezone North Crumpit Woods and Newport Ridge to a new zone called RM-5. There appears to have been little public discussion or understanding of the particulars of the proposed RM-5 zone. The proposed zone would require a minimum lot size of one hectare (2.47 acres). On such a very large lot, an owner can build either a neighbourhood commercial use or 12 apartments (it must be one use or the other on any parcel). Interestingly, the resulting apartment use density would be very similar to RS-1 (approx. 5 units/acre). I don’t think it is too strong a statement to say that it makes any development of these properties unviable. It seems that the purpose of the rezoning is to quash the development potential of these lands with the hope that the landowners will apply for a rezoning that Council prefers.
I would caution Council against this approach for many reasons. These reasons include lack of fairness to the landowners, our community’s reputation in the development and financial sectors and the fact that the District does not seem to have clear land use objectives for the areas. A more appropriate course of action would be to work collaboratively with landowners to accomplish mutual objectives. I have little doubt that this could be accomplished given that he District has significant control over the development process and also can offer the incentive of increased densities. Most importantly, these are not areas compatible with high density uses.
Despite suggestions to the contrary, the areas in question will not be “walkable” as they are located far away from commercial areas and are generally removed from primary transportation routes. To put it another way, most people who live there will need to own a vehicle. Accordingly, putting more people there increases the number of vehicles. High density only enhances a community in areas that are in walking distance of, or have good transit to, retail service and employment opportunities.
I do agree that there are opportunities to mix housing options in these areas. Mixed duplex/townhome/single family uses in these areas are desirable. I expect that the landowners would be receptive to such changes. In summary, many of the proposed zoning amendments appear to be a heavy-handed approach to what should really be some relatively minor tweaking of land uses. I would suggest that a more constructive approach would be to focus on what our community does want in the neighbourhoods in question. Without that vision the proposed rezonings may very well do more harm than good.
Regarding process, municipalities generally strive to not have public hearings on significant rezonings in the summer, let alone when oral submissions are impossible because of COVID-19.
The agenda also calls for a vote on third reading at the same meeting as the Public Hearing. That also does not follow best practices.
In short, the proposed schedule is exacerbating the perception of lack of collaboration, fairness and predictability. Council should not feel pressured to endorse these proposals. You have both the means and the time to determine, and constructively implement, your vision for our community
Carlotta Liechti says
Good solid points, Greg. Now the question is, will this council pause and table these “staff suggestions” so we the voters can be heard?
Dolores says
Good question Carlotta! If past performance is an indication I would guess it will pass! 😔
Matt Blackman says
Well written! You make many valid points. One that seems all to obvious to me but which was not discussed at the online meeting was the given the low density (0.2 FAR) and other restrictions, this appears to be a not-so-subtle attempt to “motivate” stakeholders to come to council hat in hand to plead for a more workable zoning option. No doubt this will mean increased Community Amenity Contributions (CACs) and/or other contributions as well as a significant increase in development costs (as indicated during the meeting by a number of speakers) will be required if any zoning changes are to be considered. I see no other logical explanation paraphrasing Occam’s Razor that the simplest explanation is the most logical.
Don’t know about you but I consider this approach to be patently dishonest on the part of our elected officials and consider this a breach of public trust.
I wonder how many other Squamish residents and landowners are feeling the same?
francine says
Many too many to count and the ones that want to be heard are silenced we are living in a very strange time.
But it is unheard of when three ex mayor head of counsel who come out to bring in valuable opinion and concerns all within one week.