An application for a subdivision that appeared before the qathet Regional District (qRD) board will be sent back to the planning committee for further discussion and clarification.
At the September 30 regional board meeting, a subdivision application for 8101 Verkerk Road, for a proposed six-lot subdivision application, was presented to the board. The recommendation from the qRD planning committee that had vetted the proposal was that the regional district should advise the ministry of transportation and infrastructure (MOTI) that it had no objection to the subdivision with four conditions.
When the resolution was introduced to the qRD board, Electoral Area B director Mark Gisborne suggested an amendment to one of the conditions, which stipulated that the applicant provide qRD with funds in lieu of park dedication in accordance with Section 510 of the Local Government Act. Gisborne’s recommendation was that the applicant provide qathet Regional District with a parkland dedication along Deighton Creek and the unnamed water course contained within the boundary of proposed lot five, with the remaining five per cent to be provided as funds in lieu of parkland dedication in accordance with section 510 of the Local Government Act.
Gisborne said his understanding of section 510 is that the regional district is allowed to request up to five per cent parkland or five per cent of the land value in funds. He said he had met with a representative of MOTI who indicated the regional district could actually do a combination of parkland and funds.
“Looking at the Local Government Act, it says if an official community plan contains policies and designations respecting the type and location of parks, the local government may determine whether the owner must provide land or money,” said Gisborne.
He said looking at lot five, it is predominantly riparian, and he thinks there is a great opportunity to request a portion of parkland to help the community, which has sent significant correspondence lamenting the loss of greenspace and trees that have been removed from the neighbouring property being proposed for development.
Board chair Patrick Brabazon asked chief administrative officer Al Radke if the regional district seeks parkland dedication rather than the money, if qRD simply tells the proponent it would like parkland dedicated, if it would then leave it up to the proponent to offer some land to the regional district.
“If we were to say to the proponent at this stage of the game we want this piece of land, presumably the proponent has to go back to the surveyor and do a new plan showing that a piece of land has been severed for the regional district, would that not be the case?” asked Brabazon.
Radke said this was just at the subdivision application level right now and specifying what part of the property the regional district wants to identify is not out of the question.
Manager of planning services Laura Roddan said the exact location of the park would be determined before the board’s final approval of the subdivision. She said the general area is identified in the motion, then the exact location of it takes place as the applicant works through the conditions of the subdivision.
City director George Doubt said he was not saying it’s a bad idea to dedicate parkland but he was not sure this was the appropriate time.
“The application has been to the planning committee a couple of times and now we have before us a drawing of lot five with a 1.4 hectare minimum lot size,” said Doubt. “I assume if you take parkland dedication as part of that, it would certainly require a redrawing of the proposed lot plan. The more appropriate time would have been at the planning stage and maybe the right thing to do is refer it back to planning to provide the proponent an opportunity to look at the lot sizes and adjust them.”
Electoral Area C director Clay Brander said going along with Doubt’s concerns, the lots were supposed to be a 1.4 hectare minimum size, and the parkland would drop them below 1.4 hectares. He said he also had concerns about access.
“I like the idea of parkland dedication but possibly not in this case,” said Brander.
Brabazon said the matter was sufficiently complicated that referral back to the planning committee was in order. He made a motion to that effect, which was carried.
