Campground? That's a good idea! The place has a great tradition as a successful campground facility to build on, including the warm relationship between the district and the former operator. Shouldn't take long to recoup the 16 million$ purchase price by renting out campsites, might even make enough to pay the property taxes. Perhaps it's true that the developer needs to get more focused on the needs and desires of the community. Council made that quite clear. Thicke seeks "vision", Baert is looking for "asperations", Mac Master, at least is clear, he's blackmailing for "amenities", Anderson is wondering if/when the OCP rules are changing, Thorogood agrees that there is no plan for water infrastructure (after years of consultants researching the problem), and Blanchette? he's "overwhelmed". That should give the developer some solid footing to base any future planning or re-application upon. Good idea? Bad idea? It doesn't really matter. Once it reaches council chambers it's more like the tea party, down the rabbit hole, as seen through the looking glass.
mmm maybe you've been living in the boonies too long and perhaps haven't had an opportunity to see or read what is happening out there in the big world ...but ... amenities are more than a common occurrence and ensures that villages like ours get something in return for the millions that are made by big developers in locations like ours. Give your head a shake. Seriously you can't be that stupid? Let local homeowners pay for the sewer, water , sidewalks , etc etc so that big business and billionaires can develop properties while we should be thankful with a bunch of minimum wage jobs to service their investments. Thank you Mayor and council - kindly continue to ensure that we maintain some quality of life in our village by ensuring that out of town investors contribute to our municipal tax coffers in a substantial fashion. Expecting significant contributions to amenities is appropriate. We only get to do this once. Let's ensure that Tofino remains a community of villagers and citizens and not just a community of investors looking for nothing more than a return on their money.
I don't understand how a flat out "NO!", serves the interests of the people of Tofino. Why couldn't council reject the application, but invite a re-application with conditions that council would like to see addressed, such as amenities, infrastructure contributions, staff and public housing, public beach access, more public information and input, etc. etc. addressed as a part of the proposal? Instead, the potential "future partner" is told to open a campground. I don't see this as a very good example of what any developer might expect to see in response to interest in development of any much needed housing in the district.
Re 10:11 you do not understand council procedure. They can only vote Yes or No. Even if one abstains, that is considered a vote in favour. There is nothing to stop the applicant from applying again.
good point 10:11 -- A flat NO serves no one's best interests. Negotiate or bargain for what it is we need or want. Set the bar high for as 9:23 said , we only get to do this once.
Indeed 12:17..... negotiate, bargain, discuss in a reasonable manner...... not prattle on wistfully about "visions" and "asperations" and statements of being "overwhelmed". These are serious business people with millions of dollars at stake, show them the respect they deserve with hard facts and clear messages and intentions. These guys are operating with "real money", not "tax dollars" that can be tossed about aimlessly with no thought or concern to the consequences. Perhaps the application isn't what the people of Tofino desire, but it looks like a serious proposal that deserves better than the gong show responses reported in the Westerly News.
I am sure the developer sat down with council or at the very least the mayor and planning (Rogers) and asked will this fly? They no doubt said oh yes this would be great for Tofino... go ahead and spend lots of money getting it ready and propose the idea to Council......
The project was a non-starter and council and staff wasted everyone's time. How many times have we seen this??? We know from the OCP doesn't mean anything as we now have Crab Apple RV campground
7:51.............real money? real assholes making more real money for no one who is invested in real life in this community. unless tofino is not a real place and someone can just buy it with real money and fake words.
@10:19.... Great approach. Call them assholes and liars with fake words and hate them. That ought to help. Where do you expect that the "real money" for water infrastructure upgrades, and sidewalks, and road paving, and a sewage facility, and public beach access is going to come from? It comes from DCC fees and amenities contributions attached to development permits.But that's not going to happen, not with people like you screaming your objections without offering any reasonable alternative ideas in return. If you don't like the proposal, tell us your suggestion for an alternate plan, tell us your ideas for amenities contributions, tell us about your "visions" for the property, tell us about the "asperations" you aspire to for the site. Unless, like council, your're too "overwhelmed" to do anything more than simply say "NO!"...... and offer nothing more than a campground as the solution to Tofino's housing and accomodation shortage.
It is currently zoned for 500 or more campsites. 500x $40.00 x 100 days = $2,000,000 No rezoning or DCCs required. Many of us remember the many joys of Jack's campground.
real money from a large corporation connotes to me that its somehow better than money small business owners and ordinary citizens generate. or do you mean real in terms of big money? like millions instead of thousands. sorry to imply a corporation is a greedy rectum.....they actually go the other way. the bottom line is water availability. it isn't there to service 300 residential units and 20,000 sq ft retail. its hardly there to service whatever new residential units coming on line in the near future.
This is Canada!! There's millions and millions of gallons of water!! All that's required is the infrastructure to deliver it to town. All that's required to supply the infrastructure is "real money". The place to get this money is either from taxation, or a winning lotto ticket...... or maybe from development DCC charges, amenities fees and the like. Which do you see as the most favorable possibility? Or is Tofino going to remain as it now exists, no more houses built, no more resorts, no expansion of any type whatsoever?
its up to a developer to figure what is needed most here and offer a solution - collect their own rainwater, package treatment plant for sewage, new community hall, etc etc. like whistler.
guess what Eco wieners, there's something call a water well,
you drill on property, put a well and done you have unlimited water.
Even better, you can have sceptic field and not have to pollute the ocean, your solid waste tank gets emptied every year to a municipality that cares and have treatment plant like your southern neighbors.
Water catchment from rainfall is contaminated to certain extent and not potable.
All this nonsense is just strategic excuses to keep the existing owner & resorts monopoly on the situation.
....up to the developer to figure out what is needed?? Huh? I thought that was what we elected a mayor and council and hired a planner and director of sustainability to do.
I already told the developer at the meeting at Tin Wis that they'd get more traction if they offered a public pool. It is water that is the issue. We have only enough for the existing developments. There is no way the residents here should be asked to give a further deal of discounted water to a new development.
Rain water needs filtration and Ultraviolet treatment. No big deal to install at each user location. When filter is full, water shuts off until changed. One small town in US with poisonous contamination in their water went this route rather than central treatment. Way cheaper.
A proposal to source their own water and treat their own sewage could be looked at differently.
Ralph's numbers on the campground income are conservative.
I am not 8:24 but the simple answer is anyone can make any type of proposal and take it to council to see if it will fly. We were not there to know what staff told them. All staff can do is look at the official community plan and follow that. They do not make the policies. They can suggest to council, they can advise council but they can't make council do anything. They are our elected officials and have themselves to follow the OCP's. An outside developer can propose a rocket launching facility there or some other absurd idea and the same thing would have been done, the proposals would have been looked at by staff and it would have gone to council and they would have to look after the interests of the citizens by following the ocp. For all we know the developer had been told by staff to forget about it. The rate of return suggested by Ralph of 2 mil a year in revenue suggests a less than 10 year payback on the purchase. Pretty good basis to buy real estate and that is without any rezoning for a bonus which is what they were trying to get at the expense of the community.
I think the 20,000 sq ft of retail was a stumbling block. Council has tried to revitalize the downtown and it would be counter productive to have a strip mall developed at the site of Jack's old store.
the people who bought this property did not use a realtor.. they were very confidant they knew what they were doing and didn't need one.. aside from the listing realtor. no one promised them they would be given a green light to put in what has been proposed. selling long term leases is a de facto subdivision therefore many more considerations than a campground... anyone can apply to do anything but don't be aggrieved if it doesn't fly before council. its obvious the proponents consider themselves professional developers able to prepare the proper paperwork to apply to do what they think is a good idea. council did not agree it was a good idea. no one can pre-promise approval of an application like this one although its apparent that some folks wanted it to be a slam dunk.
I would like to know more about McMasters list. Are applicants put on a list, like a s--- list or what? I take from what he is quoted as saying, that if council doesn't like something about your application or your pitch, you end up at the bottom of some list. What does being at the bottom of this list mean to the applicant. I am not a lawyer but you have to question weather this constitutes some kind of abuse of office. Surely applicants trying to make use of their private property deserve administrative fairness while dealing with the municipal authority.
One councillor thinks it complies with the OCP but they all reject it. Just advise the applicant to keep shooting darts at an invisible target and spending money in the hope that eventually one of the darts, perhaps by accident, will hit the target. Will anybody know when that happens? At least it makes for a number of good municipal jobs.
As a councillor, this game of hide and seek provides lots of cover.
Light begins to shine on the situation in council regarding development of any kind" SNAFU (situation normal, all fucked up). No one there has any idea what they're doing. There's an OCP, it cost a fortune to design it, but it apparently means nothing to anyone, isn't even used as a guideline. This isn't only about this proposal, it's about ANY proposal that comes before council. Maybe this, maybe that, not sure, perhaps, later, seeking "vision" and "asperations". At least one councillor had the honesty to say the truth "overwhelming"; (translate to "we don't have the mental capacity to deal with this").
The list referred to is the stack of applications that need to go before council to be approved or not. it's intended to be a fair way of dealing with rezoning, subdivisions, OCP amendments, etc. in an orderly manner so that no one individual application is being processed ahead of any others. some applications are missing a few pieces of information so that application is pending until the information is complete. others, like the Cox Bay application, are rejected. if they choose to reapply it's basically treated as a new application and goes to the back of the line assuming the new application contains different information than the first one. for example: considering the concept of leasing 300 modular home sites for 99 years or so. this type of lease would be registered on title as stated before & is considered to be a subdivision. the first thing that comes to mind is the legal requirement for a public beach access to be created every 660 feet whenever there is a subdivision fronting upon the ocean. so somewhere along the waterfront of the campground property there needs to be the designated 33 foot road allowance for the public access. this concept escapes mention in the application. the second thing one might consider is that 300 individual lease sites constitute de facto subdivided lots which brings into play the $18,000. DCC per unit=$5,400,000. these two concepts presuppose that the estimated water consumption of 300 fully occupied leased modular homes of 60,000 gallons per day is totally within the ability of the district to supply. well, it's not. if the Sharpe Road supply is interrupted because of algae or technical problems like last year, 60,000 gallons puts the main water source perilously close to the red line for fire protection. going a little further this puts an estimated 60,000 more gallons into whatever sewage treatment process that gets built. the last time I looked 15 years ago the cost of a sewage treatment plant worked out to six dollars per treated gallon to build. this does not include the 20,000 ft.² retail commercial complex with an undetermined amount of water to be consumed and treated with its attendant costs. so if the administrator or any of the counsellors used a calculator to work some of these things out it's no wonder the application was turned down. it feels like the proponents of the Cox Bay development may have believed that the District was fairly naïve about the cost implications of what they proposed and the taxpayers would just gladly bend over.
thank you 5:21 for your insight. Developments of any scale need to be assessed carefully regarding not only their impact on our water and sewer systems but also regarding how they fit with what we want our community to look like in the future. Do not sell us out! Ensure that developers know our expectations re amenities and their contributions to our water and sewer systems. This might also be a good time to explore the possibility of some version of a public/private venture into establishing a proper swimming pool.
Well said 5:21. Summed up the rejection perfectly. With plans like that no wonder they were refused. They should have known it was going to happen or rather they already knew it was probably going to happen but they'd take a flyer on the plans anyway to see what they could get away with. Thank you Mayor and Council for not being bedazzled and befuddled and allowing it.
A few comments. Years ago they used to call it the "Queue". Everyone had to wait their turn. Makes sense till you realized some waited years for their turn, which was tantamount to a denial of their rights.. At that time it seemed staff where unable to process more than one application at a time. All that staff time should assist applicants in threading the eye of the needle, or telling them where there are issues which are none starters. That doesn't appear to have happened. With willing applicants the process needs to be more like a funnel, rather than a process of bear traps, bushwacks and deadends.
Only one councillor is quoted in the article as questioning the capabilities of the water system, but even he seems unsure. All other councillors are quoted as rejecting for completely different reasons...."aspiration", "vision", "amenities", scale("overwhelming"), need to change the OCP. This sounds like another big waste of time. What is the point of this application even coming forward if there is no water to support it and it doesn't meet other technical requirements as suggested. Presumably the applicant might at least get some indication of the style or kind of development council would prefer. No hope here......A campground....but one not as big as the current use allows......
From the developers point of view, I am sure a complete waste of time and resources. From the public point of view, if you oppose all development on the applicants land, a big chuckle. If you believe the applicant has any entitlement to reasonable use of their land as prescribed by local government bylaw, ie. OCP, and provincial requirement, etc. It would appear no progress was made but a lot of time and money, theirs and ours was wasted.....
Another one bites the dust, and another one, and another one.
Councillor Cathy Thick has it exactly right when she comments about Cox Bay, "This is the jewel in our crown, this bay. This is world class." Allow a massive development and we are just another Miami Beach. The community must come up with a vision for Cox Bay and relay it to any current or future developer, as the beach is a community asset.
another Item( when considering a subdivision/ long-term registered lease) is the requirement for Parkland dedication or cash-in-lieu of. it would seem to me to be an excellent opportunity for the District to acquire a park at the end of the required public access that the developers would be required to construct. for some unknown reason this concept was missing from the developer's proposal?
Many of the issues raised here by contributors are issues of importance. However they mostly concern the issue of subdivision. The issue under consideration was zoning, that is density and use, covered primarily by the OCP. Now one of the councillors was quoted as stating that the application complied with the OCP, which is correct as the designation ascribed has been tourist commercial since before the water and sewer system was constructed in this area.
The idea that the long term rental of sites is actually a form of subdivision is likely correct. This warrants the consideration of the Approving officers authority on issues of Foreshore access, Parkland dedication, the application of Development cost charges, servicing issues, form and characteretc etc, but are issues that flow from rezoning are separate issues. All these issues may be on the table and dealt with dealt with at the same time as a rezoning but are sometimes and frequently dealt with subsequent to the rezoning, by the Approving officer directly.
From the article, what was rejected was the rezoning to a certain density and use. Which in and of itself presents challenges to any and all property owners as council has now rejected their own OCP. Until it is amended, the community has now no understanding of where this may be going, and the developer has no understanding of where things are going. Again this will legitimately raise the question of whether Tofino is acting in good faith in regard to development applications.
If as councillor Thorogood suggests there may be insufficient water to consider developmentof the area, why isn"t this issue dealt with in a more upfront and transparent fashion. Why waste peoples time and money. It is worth noting that a 500 site campground would use considerable amounts of water as well but apparently there is no problem with this. If I was paying a big tax bill, and service charges, on land designated tourist commercial, but was effectively being told there is nothing I can do on the land other than operate a "small" campground, when I was at least entitled to a 500 site campground, I might be hopping mad.
at present the 25 acre campground has approximately 485 sites. this would be considered a legal nonconforming use if the density is lower than that in the campground zone. it may be 18? however if it's to to be considered a subdivided leasehold RV site were looking at approximately the density of 20 units per acre. this would suggest a minimum lot size of 2200 ft.² may be even smaller than a tiny home property. the bottom line of course is water and 1014 you're right. no point in beating around the bush. why not just say right up front we don't have enough water to service tourist commercial at this point?
The District seems to have enough water for two new condo developments. Enough water for temporary campground. When Bert Braiden had that property , he had his own water supply......
Another unspoken issue is measuring waste water that is being produced. The town has to pump it and develop a treatment plan. If places are using well water as a source for their businesses then the water they are putting into the sewer system is not being properly accounted for as the sewer bill is based on water consumption. In this case they won't have consumed any water but they'd be contributing sewer water without having to pay for it.
5:19...... That's not really an issue. The well owner can just run a discharge pipe and jettison their wastewater directly into the ocean, avoiding the use of the district system..... which uses pumps and pipes to jettison the discharge directly into the ocean. Makes no real difference since wastewater flow in the district system isn't measured at any point. End result is the same.
5:19 just jettison 300 r/v sites poop into coxbay? thats what the district does anyway.. right? awesome. seriously though the districts wastewater is measured and the discharge permit issued by the federal govt allows only so much wastewater to be discharged.
If there is scarce water, but some development is approved, how is it determined why one particular party's right supersedes another. By whose amenity contribution is bigger? Remember one councillor rejected the applicant on the basis of an inadequate amenity offering. This whole process could get sticky, legally, as it will necessarily require council to be prejudicial on the allocation of water and hence development rights, and in ways not necessarily allowed in Provincial Law. Private property owners do have rights under the law....The town has a bad reputation for corrupting the approval process and a record of loosing as well. Oh!, to be a Litigation Lawyer when the fruit is so ripe for the picking.
Of course they would just be protecting the interests of the town.......Right???
Interesting that Councils have used the "lack" of compliance with the OCP as the rational for rejection of a rezoning application on countless occasions. It has even been referred to as a "sacred trust between the community and the Council" in a moment of inspired oratory, at it's initial passing. That councillor no longer serves but the flame still burns on
43 comments:
Campground? That's a good idea! The place has a great tradition as a successful campground facility to build on, including the warm relationship between the district and the former operator. Shouldn't take long to recoup the 16 million$ purchase price by renting out campsites, might even make enough to pay the property taxes.
Perhaps it's true that the developer needs to get more focused on the needs and desires of the community. Council made that quite clear. Thicke seeks "vision", Baert is looking for "asperations", Mac Master, at least is clear, he's blackmailing for "amenities", Anderson is wondering if/when the OCP rules are changing, Thorogood agrees that there is no plan for water infrastructure (after years of consultants researching the problem), and Blanchette? he's "overwhelmed". That should give the developer some solid footing to base any future planning or re-application upon.
Good idea? Bad idea? It doesn't really matter. Once it reaches council chambers it's more like the tea party, down the rabbit hole, as seen through the looking glass.
mmm maybe you've been living in the boonies too long and perhaps haven't had an opportunity to see or read what is happening out there in the big world ...but ... amenities are more than a common occurrence and ensures that villages like ours get something in return for the millions that are made by big developers in locations like ours. Give your head a shake. Seriously you can't be that stupid? Let local homeowners pay for the sewer, water , sidewalks , etc etc so that big business and billionaires can develop properties while we should be thankful with a bunch of minimum wage jobs to service their investments. Thank you Mayor and council - kindly continue to ensure that we maintain some quality of life in our village by ensuring that out of town investors contribute to our municipal tax coffers in a substantial fashion. Expecting significant contributions to amenities is appropriate. We only get to do this once. Let's ensure that Tofino remains a community of villagers and citizens and not just a community of investors looking for nothing more than a return on their money.
I don't understand how a flat out "NO!", serves the interests of the people of Tofino. Why couldn't council reject the application, but invite a re-application with conditions that council would like to see addressed, such as amenities, infrastructure contributions, staff and public housing, public beach access, more public information and input, etc. etc. addressed as a part of the proposal? Instead, the potential "future partner" is told to open a campground. I don't see this as a very good example of what any developer might expect to see in response to interest in development of any much needed housing in the district.
Re 10:11 you do not understand council procedure. They can only vote Yes or No. Even if one abstains, that is considered a vote in favour. There is nothing to stop the applicant from applying again.
good point 10:11 -- A flat NO serves no one's best interests. Negotiate or bargain for what it is we need or want. Set the bar high for as 9:23 said , we only get to do this once.
Indeed 12:17..... negotiate, bargain, discuss in a reasonable manner...... not prattle on wistfully about "visions" and "asperations" and statements of being "overwhelmed". These are serious business people with millions of dollars at stake, show them the respect they deserve with hard facts and clear messages and intentions. These guys are operating with "real money", not "tax dollars" that can be tossed about aimlessly with no thought or concern to the consequences. Perhaps the application isn't what the people of Tofino desire, but it looks like a serious proposal that deserves better than the gong show responses reported in the Westerly News.
I am sure the developer sat down with council or at the very least the mayor and planning (Rogers) and asked will this fly? They no doubt said oh yes this would be great for Tofino... go ahead and spend lots of money getting it ready and propose the idea to Council......
The project was a non-starter and council and staff wasted everyone's time. How many times have we seen this??? We know from the OCP doesn't mean anything as we now have Crab Apple RV campground
7:51.............real money? real assholes making more real money for no one who is invested in real life in this community.
unless tofino is not a real place and someone can just buy it with real money and fake words.
Like the many out of town VR owners ?
@10:19.... Great approach. Call them assholes and liars with fake words and hate them. That ought to help. Where do you expect that the "real money" for water infrastructure upgrades, and sidewalks, and road paving, and a sewage facility, and public beach access is going to come from? It comes from DCC fees and amenities contributions attached to development permits.But that's not going to happen, not with people like you screaming your objections without offering any reasonable alternative ideas in return. If you don't like the proposal, tell us your suggestion for an alternate plan, tell us your ideas for amenities contributions, tell us about your "visions" for the property, tell us about the "asperations" you aspire to for the site. Unless, like council, your're too "overwhelmed" to do anything more than simply say "NO!"...... and offer nothing more than a campground as the solution to Tofino's housing and accomodation shortage.
It is currently zoned for 500 or more campsites. 500x $40.00 x 100 days = $2,000,000
No rezoning or DCCs required. Many of us remember the many joys of Jack's campground.
What joy warms your heart more; the overdoses or the riots ?
The horse shit on the trail was pretty great. I think everyone misses the barbed wire.
real money from a large corporation connotes to me that its somehow better than money small business owners and ordinary citizens generate. or do you mean real in terms of big money? like millions instead of thousands. sorry to imply a corporation is a greedy rectum.....they actually go the other way.
the bottom line is water availability. it isn't there to service 300 residential units and 20,000 sq ft retail.
its hardly there to service whatever new residential units coming on line in the near future.
This is Canada!! There's millions and millions of gallons of water!! All that's required is the infrastructure to deliver it to town. All that's required to supply the infrastructure is "real money". The place to get this money is either from taxation, or a winning lotto ticket...... or maybe from development DCC charges, amenities fees and the like. Which do you see as the most favorable possibility? Or is Tofino going to remain as it now exists, no more houses built, no more resorts, no expansion of any type whatsoever?
its up to a developer to figure what is needed most here and offer a solution - collect their own rainwater, package treatment plant for sewage, new community hall, etc etc. like whistler.
guess what Eco wieners, there's something call a water well,
you drill on property,
put a well and done you have unlimited water.
Even better, you can have sceptic field and not have to pollute the ocean, your solid waste tank gets emptied every year to a municipality that cares and have treatment plant like your southern neighbors.
Water catchment from rainfall is contaminated to certain extent and not potable.
All this nonsense is just strategic excuses to keep the existing owner & resorts monopoly on the situation.
Grrrr
....up to the developer to figure out what is needed?? Huh? I thought that was what we elected a mayor and council and hired a planner and director of sustainability to do.
I already told the developer at the meeting at Tin Wis that they'd get more traction if they offered a public pool.
It is water that is the issue. We have only enough for the existing developments. There is no way the residents here should be asked to give a further deal of discounted water to a new development.
Rain water needs filtration and Ultraviolet treatment. No big deal to install at each user location. When filter is full, water shuts off until changed. One small town in US with poisonous contamination in their water went this route rather than central treatment. Way cheaper.
A proposal to source their own water and treat their own sewage could be looked at differently.
Ralph's numbers on the campground income are conservative.
Re:8:24 Your post seems like the only one that has any traction. Why is it the council, mayor and staff keep jerking people around?
I am not 8:24 but the simple answer is anyone can make any type of proposal and take it to council to see if it will fly.
We were not there to know what staff told them. All staff can do is look at the official community plan and follow that. They do not make the policies. They can suggest to council, they can advise council but they can't make council do anything. They are our elected officials and have themselves to follow the OCP's.
An outside developer can propose a rocket launching facility there or some other absurd idea and the same thing would have been done, the proposals would have been looked at by staff and it would have gone to council and they would have to look after the interests of the citizens by following the ocp.
For all we know the developer had been told by staff to forget about it.
The rate of return suggested by Ralph of 2 mil a year in revenue suggests a less than 10 year payback on the purchase. Pretty good basis to buy real estate and that is without any rezoning for a bonus which is what they were trying to get at the expense of the community.
I think the 20,000 sq ft of retail was a stumbling block. Council has tried to revitalize the downtown and it would be counter productive to have a strip mall developed at the site of Jack's old store.
the people who bought this property did not use a realtor.. they were very confidant they knew what they were doing and didn't need one.. aside from the listing realtor.
no one promised them they would be given a green light to put in what has been proposed.
selling long term leases is a de facto subdivision therefore many more considerations than a campground...
anyone can apply to do anything but don't be aggrieved if it doesn't fly before council. its obvious the proponents consider themselves professional developers able to prepare the proper paperwork to apply to do what they think is a good idea.
council did not agree it was a good idea.
no one can pre-promise approval of an application like this one although its apparent that some folks wanted it to be a slam dunk.
I would like to know more about McMasters list. Are applicants put on a list, like a s--- list or what? I take from what he is quoted as saying, that if council doesn't like something about your application or your pitch, you end up at the bottom of some list. What does being at the bottom of this list mean to the applicant.
I am not a lawyer but you have to question weather this constitutes some kind of abuse of office. Surely applicants trying to make use of their private property deserve administrative fairness while dealing with the municipal authority.
One councillor thinks it complies with the OCP but they all reject it. Just advise the applicant to keep shooting darts at an invisible target and spending money in the hope that eventually one of the darts, perhaps by accident, will hit the target. Will anybody know when that happens? At least it makes for a number of good municipal jobs.
As a councillor, this game of hide and seek provides lots of cover.
Light begins to shine on the situation in council regarding development of any kind" SNAFU (situation normal, all fucked up). No one there has any idea what they're doing. There's an OCP, it cost a fortune to design it, but it apparently means nothing to anyone, isn't even used as a guideline. This isn't only about this proposal, it's about ANY proposal that comes before council. Maybe this, maybe that, not sure, perhaps, later, seeking "vision" and "asperations". At least one councillor had the honesty to say the truth "overwhelming"; (translate to "we don't have the mental capacity to deal with this").
The list referred to is the stack of applications that need to go before council to be approved or not.
it's intended to be a fair way of dealing with rezoning, subdivisions, OCP amendments, etc. in an orderly manner so that no one individual application is being processed ahead of any others.
some applications are missing a few pieces of information so that application is pending until the information is complete.
others, like the Cox Bay application, are rejected. if they choose to reapply it's basically treated as a new application and goes to the back of the line assuming the new application contains different information than the first one.
for example: considering the concept of leasing 300 modular home sites for 99 years or so.
this type of lease would be registered on title as stated before & is considered to be a subdivision.
the first thing that comes to mind is the legal requirement for a public beach access to be created every 660 feet whenever there is a subdivision fronting upon the ocean.
so somewhere along the waterfront of the campground property there needs to be the designated 33 foot road allowance for the public access. this concept escapes mention in the application.
the second thing one might consider is that 300 individual lease sites constitute de facto subdivided lots which brings into play the $18,000. DCC per unit=$5,400,000.
these two concepts presuppose that the estimated water consumption of 300 fully occupied leased modular homes of 60,000 gallons per day is totally within the ability of the district to supply.
well, it's not. if the Sharpe Road supply is interrupted because of algae or technical problems like last year, 60,000 gallons puts the main water source perilously close to the red line for fire protection.
going a little further this puts an estimated 60,000 more gallons into whatever sewage treatment process that gets built.
the last time I looked 15 years ago the cost of a sewage treatment plant worked out to six dollars per treated gallon to build.
this does not include the 20,000 ft.² retail commercial complex with an undetermined amount of water to be consumed and treated with its attendant costs.
so if the administrator or any of the counsellors used a calculator to work some of these things out it's no wonder the application was turned down.
it feels like the proponents of the Cox Bay development may have believed that the District was fairly naïve about the cost implications of what they proposed and the taxpayers would just gladly bend over.
thank you 5:21 for your insight. Developments of any scale need to be assessed carefully regarding not only their impact on our water and sewer systems but also regarding how they fit with what we want our community to look like in the future. Do not sell us out! Ensure that developers know our expectations re amenities and their contributions to our water and sewer systems. This might also be a good time to explore the possibility of some version of a public/private venture into establishing a proper swimming pool.
Well said 5:21.
Summed up the rejection perfectly.
With plans like that no wonder they were refused. They should have known it was going to happen or rather they already knew it was probably going to happen but they'd take a flyer on the plans anyway to see what they could get away with.
Thank you Mayor and Council for not being bedazzled and befuddled and allowing it.
A few comments. Years ago they used to call it the "Queue". Everyone had to wait their turn. Makes sense till you realized some waited years for their turn, which was tantamount to a denial of their rights.. At that time it seemed staff where unable to process more than one application at a time. All that staff time should assist applicants in threading the eye of the needle, or telling them where there are issues which are none starters. That doesn't appear to have happened. With willing applicants the process needs to be more like a funnel, rather than a process of bear traps, bushwacks and deadends.
Only one councillor is quoted in the article as questioning the capabilities of the water system, but even he seems unsure. All other councillors are quoted as rejecting for completely different reasons...."aspiration", "vision", "amenities", scale("overwhelming"), need to change the OCP. This sounds like another big waste of time. What is the point of this application even coming forward if there is no water to support it and it doesn't meet other technical requirements as suggested. Presumably the applicant might at least get some indication of the style or kind of development council would prefer. No hope here......A campground....but one not as big as the current use allows......
From the developers point of view, I am sure a complete waste of time and resources. From the public point of view, if you oppose all development on the applicants land, a big chuckle. If you believe the applicant has any entitlement to reasonable use of their land as prescribed by local government bylaw, ie. OCP, and provincial requirement, etc. It would appear no progress was made but a lot of time and money, theirs and ours was wasted.....
Another one bites the dust, and another one, and another one.
There's no water. Let's establish a swimming pool. Sometimes you just want to crawl under a rock and hope they'll all just go away.
The swimming pool could have used salt water but crawling under a rock and hiding is a great idea particularly in August.
Councillor Cathy Thick has it exactly right when she comments about Cox Bay, "This is the jewel in our crown, this bay. This is world class." Allow a massive development and we are just another Miami Beach. The community must come up with a vision for Cox Bay and relay it to any current or future developer, as the beach is a community asset.
That shouldn't be a problem. Getting people in Tofino to agree on something....
another Item( when considering a subdivision/ long-term registered lease) is the requirement for Parkland dedication or cash-in-lieu of.
it would seem to me to be an excellent opportunity for the District to acquire a park at the end of the required public access that the developers would be required to construct.
for some unknown reason this concept was missing from the developer's proposal?
@8:46...STOP IT! It's Christmas.
Many of the issues raised here by contributors are issues of importance. However they mostly concern the issue of subdivision. The issue under consideration was zoning, that is density and use, covered primarily by the OCP. Now one of the councillors was quoted as stating that the application complied with the OCP, which is correct as the designation ascribed has been tourist commercial since before the water and sewer system was constructed in this area.
The idea that the long term rental of sites is actually a form of subdivision is likely correct. This warrants the consideration of the Approving officers authority on issues of Foreshore access, Parkland dedication, the application of Development cost charges, servicing issues, form and characteretc etc, but are issues that flow from rezoning are separate issues. All these issues may be on the table and dealt with dealt with at the same time as a rezoning but are sometimes and frequently dealt with subsequent to the rezoning, by the Approving officer directly.
From the article, what was rejected was the rezoning to a certain density and use. Which in and of itself presents challenges to any and all property owners as council has now rejected their own OCP. Until it is amended, the community has now no understanding of where this may be going, and the developer has no understanding of where things are going. Again this will legitimately raise the question of whether Tofino is acting in good faith in regard to development applications.
If as councillor Thorogood suggests there may be insufficient water to consider developmentof the area, why isn"t this issue dealt with in a more upfront and transparent fashion. Why waste peoples time and money. It is worth noting that a 500 site campground would use considerable amounts of water as well but apparently there is no problem with this. If I was paying a big tax bill, and service charges, on land designated tourist commercial, but was effectively being told there is nothing I can do on the land other than operate a "small" campground, when I was at least entitled to a 500 site campground, I might be hopping mad.
at present the 25 acre campground has approximately 485 sites. this would be considered a legal nonconforming use if the density is lower than that in the campground zone. it may be 18?
however if it's to to be considered a subdivided leasehold RV site were looking at approximately the density of 20 units per acre.
this would suggest a minimum lot size of 2200 ft.² may be even smaller than a tiny home property.
the bottom line of course is water and 1014 you're right. no point in beating around the bush. why not just say right up front we don't have enough water to service tourist commercial at this point?
The District seems to have enough water for two new condo developments. Enough water for temporary campground. When Bert Braiden had that property , he had his own water supply......
Another unspoken issue is measuring waste water that is being produced.
The town has to pump it and develop a treatment plan. If places are using well water as a source for their businesses then the water they are putting into the sewer system is not being properly accounted for as the sewer bill is based on water consumption. In this case they won't have consumed any water but they'd be contributing sewer water without having to pay for it.
5:19...... That's not really an issue. The well owner can just run a discharge pipe and jettison their wastewater directly into the ocean, avoiding the use of the district system..... which uses pumps and pipes to jettison the discharge directly into the ocean. Makes no real difference since wastewater flow in the district system isn't measured at any point. End result is the same.
5:19 just jettison 300 r/v sites poop into coxbay? thats what the district does anyway.. right? awesome.
seriously though the districts wastewater is measured and the discharge permit issued by the federal govt allows only so much wastewater to be discharged.
If there is scarce water, but some development is approved, how is it determined why one particular party's right supersedes another. By whose amenity contribution is bigger? Remember one councillor rejected the applicant on the basis of an inadequate amenity offering. This whole process could get sticky, legally, as it will necessarily require council to be prejudicial on the allocation of water and hence development rights, and in ways not necessarily allowed in Provincial Law. Private property owners do have rights under the law....The town has a bad reputation for corrupting the approval process and a record of loosing as well. Oh!, to be a Litigation Lawyer when the fruit is so ripe for the picking.
Of course they would just be protecting the interests of the town.......Right???
Interesting that Councils have used the "lack" of compliance with the OCP as the rational for rejection of a rezoning application on countless occasions. It has even been referred to as a "sacred trust between the community and the Council" in a moment of inspired oratory, at it's initial passing. That councillor no longer serves but the flame still burns on
Of course, till it doesn't
Post a Comment