qathet Regional District voted to receive a letter advocating for greenspace in the development of a proposed new subdivision at Verkerk Road, south of Powell River.
In a letter to regional district directors, Janet May said the regional district’s planning committee missed an opportunity in its decision to accept money in lieu of land for greenspace in the development of 8101 Verkerk Road.
“I suggest that the board look into the possibility of acquiring a portion of lot five for greenspace or park,” stated May in her letter to the board.
She stated that Electoral Area B residents value greenspace.
According to section 510 of the Local Government Act, an owner of land being subdivided must, at the owner’s option, provide, without compensation, parkland of an amount and in a location acceptable to the local government, or pay to the municipality or regional district an amount that equals the market value of the land that may be required for parkland purposes. The regional district will be accepting the monetary route for the Verkerk planned subdivision.
May stated that as she reads the act, it refers to official community plan (OCP) policies respecting the location of future parks. She stated the OCP is guided by the parks and greenspace plan.
“This plan indicates the importance of riparian areas, habitat corridors and estuaries,” stated May. “Lot five of the Verkerk subdivision is an example of all of these features, blessed with two water courses, it is adjacent to Deighton Creek estuary and close to Myrtle Rocks park and bird sanctuary. Lot five appears to be prime to set aside for passive greenspace.”
Electoral Area D director Sandy McCormick said she was looking for clarification from staff regarding the issues raised in the letter regarding limiting to specific locations where parks and greenspace can be located.
“Not all proposals for parkland that come along were identified in the parks and greenspace plan,” said McCormick. “I’d like clarification on the limiting of parkland to specific locations and where greenspace can be located in Area B.”
Manager of planning services Laura Roddan pointed McCormick to an excerpt from the Local Government Act, which states that if an official community plan contains policies and designations respecting the location and type of future parks, the local government may determine whether the owner must provide land or money. Roddan said the area in the official community plan does not identify parks or future parks within the property that’s the subject of the proposal.
McCormick asked if the parkland could still be created in that location even though it was not identified in the OCP bylaw.
Roddan said the owner can choose to offer park dedication as part of the subdivision but the regional district can’t insist that the property owner provide that because the Local Government Act gives the property owner discretion to offer land or cash.
Electoral Area B director Mark Gisborne said he hears what staff is saying but he was still a little confused.
“It relates to the OCP policy 2.3.15.2, which states the regional district will request the dedication of lands for parks and greenspace purposes, or funds in accordance with section 510 of the Local Government Act,” said Gisborne. “Our OCP policy says we will request land or funds. However, what I’m hearing from staff is we can only request funding, and if we were to receive land it would be up to the owner’s discretion.
“That’s where the correspondence is expressing a concern that there is an area identified in the parks and greenspace plan, which is outlying in the policy in the OCP that says we will use the parks and greenspace plan, and that identifies sensitive ecosystems as an area to prioritize for parkland acquisition. I’m still confused why our OCP says we will request land or funds.”
Electoral Area A director and board chair Patrick Brabazon said the wording in the legislation and the parks and greenspace plan is clear.
The board voted unanimously to receive the letter.
