Open letter to Oliver’s Mayor and Council

Re: Pubic Hearing Concerning Modular Home Development West of Meadows Drive
OCP Amendment Bylaw 1070.01 and Zoning Amendment Bylaw 1350.03

I have several misgivings about this development and would like to be on record as opposed to its approval. Furthermore, should council decide to proceed with approval, I have some three requests for council’s consideration to enhance the public value of the proposal.

1. Concerns About Lower Density Development on Subject Lands
Although I am aware that the owner of the subject properties has been unsuccessful marketing the lands for multi-family development, I do not support this as a valid justification for amending land use bylaws to allow a density reduction in this area.

1(a) ALR Credibility and Future Development
As pointed out in the planner’s reports, the subject lands were released from the ALR in the 1980s, specifically for medium density residential development. The Tucelnuit development area was similarly released from the ALR in the late 1990s for mixed density residential development. The Tucelnuit area was subsequently reduced in density to accommodate “the market” of the day. Part of the justification given for this was that multi-family development potential remained in place along Meadows Drive, closer to the municipal core. When the latest single family residential subdivision was approved west of Meadows Drive, part of the subdivision was retained for multi-family development, and it was pointed out that the remainder of the area to the south would remain designated for medium density development.
As council is aware, municipal expansion potential in Oliver is severely constrained on all sides: OIB to the east, ALR to the north and south and both ALR and environmental reserves to the west. The prospect of having additional lands released for development in future years is slim, to say the least. The chances of future ALR release will be further curtailed if the ALC witnesses yet another instance of Oliver reneging on density commitments for released lands, in favour of marketing a single owner’s property.

1(b) Neighbourhood Pressure and Future Impact
The applicant has managed to obtain some letters of support from nearby residents, who indicate a preference for single family rather than multi-family development on the subject lands. Council should note that this support comes from owners of homes located on lands that themselves were originally designated for medium density development. It is a clear indication that if the subject lands are permitted to be developed as single family homes, then the future owners of these homes will themselves likely want single family development of other adjacent lands (e.g. Singla Brothers property), currently designated for high density development.
The medium density designation of the subject lands has been in continuously in place since the 1980s, decades before current supporters of single family growth purchased their lots. These properties were developed and purchased with full disclosure of future adjacent land use designations and this should be respected.

1(c) Responsible and Low-Impact Development
Even if an inexhaustible supply of raw land was available, continuing to allow expansion of single family areas is not the responsible long-term approach. It has been well established that low density housing uses more water, more energy, more fuel for transportation and costs more to maintain services for than medium or higher densities. Several years ago, Oliver undertook a smart-growth review of its future development. While the results of this review have led to considerable debate on individual developments, the concept of increasing densities, particularly as one gets closer to the municipal core, is the responsible way to guide sustainable development, in preference to creating more resource-hungry, single-family expansion areas.

1(d) Current Market is Poor Reason for Long -Term Change
Using marketability of one owner’s land to justify a significant change to the OCP is questionable to say the least. Indeed, in past years since release from the ALR, 177 units of medium density housing have been developed between Meadows Drive and the River, from McKinney Road to the Forbes Wetlands: Park Avenue Estates (49 units), MacPherson Meadows (20 units), Heritage House (54 units), The Willows (4 units), Riverside Villas (22 units) and Greenleaves (28 units) developments. By comparison, a total of only 67 single family homes have been sold in the same area: Brayside (6 units) and Willowglen (61 units).
As an aside, there are still two unsold single-family lots and one unsold display home in Willowglen, plus an additional 41 vacant, serviced, single-family lots in the nearby Tucelnuit area. Finally, I am advised that a building permit application has been received to complete the 30 unit apartment building at the corner of McKinney Road and Meadows Drive.
I note with considerable dismay, the Chief Administrative Officer’s comments added to the planner’s June 9, 2015 report to council: “It has already been proven in Oliver that high-density does not sell.” Statements such as this undermine Oliver’s market credibility and surrender long-term sustainability objectives to current market forces.
On the contrary, in light of the development history of this area, the market argument used for decreasing density in this area is rather weak, certainly in the longer term. When considering changes to the OCP, council should be looking at the very long term, perhaps even the ultimate build-out capacity of the Town. With all due respect to the applicant and to senior municipal staff, sacrificing a potential 100 to 200 units of medium density capacity in favour of 50 detached homes, serves only to address short-term marketing expediency. It is not the correct way to plan the future of the municipality.

2. Specific Concerns with Development Proposal
While I seriously question the long-term wisdom of this application, I understand that council and staff may be feeling pressured to allow it, perhaps in the hope of being seen to support some immediate potential development during the current council mandate. Therefore, I can foresee the real possibility that this application will be approved, despite the long-term concerns put forward in this letter and in the planner’s reports. If approval is given, at least council should make the development as beneficial to the community as possible.

2(a) New Pedestrian Connection to the Okanagan River Corridor
There is no indication on the application or in the planner’s reports whether this development is to be implemented as a standard fee-simple subdivision, or as a bare-land strata subdivision. In either case, council should note several provisions in the OCP which encourage development of pedestrian and cycling connections as opportunities arise.
This need is further supported by council’s recent decision to pave the walkway on the east side of the river adjacent to this development area. It is important to develop connections wherever opportunities arise to this corridor and its bridges, to the west side of the community.
As such, a pedestrian/cycling connection should be required at the south end of the subject lands. If a public internal roadway network is to be retained, this connection could be a simple pathway from the river dyke to the internal public roadway via a 3m to 5m wide dedication between two properties at the southeast corner of the development site.
Alternately, if a bare-land strata approach is used, a separate, dedicated corridor should be provided along the full south edge of the development from the river dyke to Meadows Drive. Past experience has demonstrated that providing public access through a strata development by way of a registered access right-of-way is not satisfactory, because strata owners invariably sign such corridors as ‘private property’, and require considerable enforcement to ensure that clear and welcome public access is maintained.
I have serious concern that council’s June 22 resolution (“That Council resolve to remove the requirement for the applicant to provide a statutory covenant for public access between Meadows Drive and the river channel through the property of Zoning Application 2013-01.”) implies that such a corridor may not be necessary in council’s opinion.

2(b) Enhance Existing Pedestrian Connection
As council is aware, there already exists a pathway around the south edge of the oxbow located at the north end of the subject lands. This pathway is located in a narrow corridor between the natural top of bank and the property line. As part of any development on these lands, this corridor should be widened sufficiently to add natural plantings and screening between the walkway and the adjacent private properties. With the development proposal included in council’s application package, the proposed lots in this area are among the deepest on the site and could accommodate widening of the existing pedestrian corridor without any loss of units.

2(c) Development Form and Character
There is also very serious concern that the ultimate development may not resemble what is proposed in the applicant’s pictures presented at the public information meeting. The proposal before council suggests modular homes similar to the type being installed in the Gallagher Lake Village development, north of Oliver. However, the only restriction on the type of building contained in the zoning bylaw is that the modular homes must meet CSA standard A277. The A277 standard governs the building standard of these homes (i.e. to meet the BC Building code in BC). It does not govern quality of construction, quality of finish or the shape of the building. If approved as presented, there would be nothing to stop the developer or a future owner from erecting flat roof or low roof slope modules in a simple rectangular shape, thus resulting in the appearance of little more than a trailer park (though built to A277 instead of Z240 standards).
Unlike multi-family developments, the Local Government Act does not allow municipalities to regulate built-form and character of single-family detached dwellings through development permits. This is supported by the proposed OCP amendment to remove this area from the multi-family development permit area, should it be reduced in density to allow single family units.
Therefore, the only effective way for council to ensure that this development does get built as proposed and does not end up resembling a trailer park, is to require a covenant to be registered on the property prior to adoption of any zoning change. This covenant would set out provisions such as placement on permanent concrete foundations, minimum roof slope, minimum number of perimeter wall articulations, diversity of size and design, and perhaps quality of finish to conform with the pictures proposed by the applicant. In this sense, it would be similar to a statutory building scheme with the important distinction that it could be enforced by the municipality instead of by the developer himself and his future customers.

I would like to conclude by reiterating that this area was released from the ALR and has since been continuously designated for medium density residential development. Reducing density on the basis of current marketability is not justified and will undermine the Town’s credibility as well as restrict options to address future housing demands.
Should council approve this development in spite of the above considerations, three key considerations should be addressed: (1) develop a new pedestrian/cycling connection to the Okanagan River near the south end of the development site; (2) enhance the existing pedestrian corridor at the north end of the site and (3) enforce the applicant’s proposed built form and character through a restrictive covenant in favour of the Town.
Because wording of a suitable covenant has yet to be developed, presented to council and registered prior to bylaw adoption, it is suggested that the July 13 public hearing be adjourned until this covenant is ready for review and be reconvened for the purpose of this review prior to final adjournment. Adoption of the bylaws should not be granted until such a covenant is registered on the title of the subject land.

Tom Szalay, P. Eng.