The development permit story seems to revolve around a development permit that was issued in an irregular manner. The project in question is the former Pacific Rim Campground at Cox Bay.
Thank you for all the information sent in. I cannot publish any documents without getting clearance from the blog’s legal team or having them authenticated by the District of Tofino.
I do not have verification as to who issued the permit. I will attempt to get a copy of the permit on Tuesday when the district office reopens.
My apologies if I couldn’t publish your comments but this is a very serious matter and I must proceed with caution.
we all know who
ReplyDeleteThe development permit was issued by the Office of sustainable cronyism. And since we haven't done anything in the last 15 years about dumping raw sewage into the pristine Ocean environment I guess you could say cronyism is the product of turd world politics.
ReplyDeleteHypocrisy too... I could go on.
There is a trend here. Pacific Sands unable to advance any expansion or renewal projects for years. They end up selling. New owners expand immediately with the Great Wall of China.
ReplyDeleteParkbridge couldn’t advance a plan after years of trying. They end up selling. New owners get a green light almost immediately .
https://www.westerlynews.ca/local-news/tofino-resort-correcting-permit-errors/
ReplyDeleteIt's as though the concept of trumpian dystopia is sweeping North America and landed right here in our community.
ReplyDeleteFairness, honesty, integrity........ Concepts for chumps.... No one ever made any money being like that.
This development permit business Will just get swept under the carpet by the district after their token admission and a slap on the wrist. After all we wouldn't want those poor bazillionaires to not make as much money as fast as they can by holding up their project.
It would be like demanding that the eco-lodge be dormitory housing for the Summer students who are working for the rain coast society. As it is the poor students are on Facebook pleading with the community to rent them a room somewhere please.
No one would make much money if it was a dormitory.
Greed trumps all.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I understood that Parkbridge was attempting to develop the property in a new way that required re-zoning. The new owners are simply re-opening the old campground. No re-zoning required and if I understand correctly, no DCC's need be paid as it isn't a new development. I must be missing something as I am not seeing any sort of conspiracy.
ReplyDeleteThe controversy seems to stem from a development permit that was issued without going through council . You are correct in that no rezoning is required. I have no information on the DCC issue.
ReplyDeleteYes the property is zoned for campgrounds but a Development Permit is required which normally includes a site plan that may specify landscaping or tree retention etc. Also any building permit to construct a building must conform to a development permit. Apparently no valid development permit exists. One may have been issued in an illegal or "irregular fashion". If it doesn't go through council it would be in violation of the bylaw. The sticky part comes into the equation when you ask who would do such a thing and why. Is this an innocent act of ignorance, stupidity of are there corrupt motives at play. !0:13 refers to similar permit issues with the same party involved. This looks very bad, but we will have to find out more. Perhaps council wasn't tough enough on the previous occasion to deter the current situation. Two wrongs don't make a right. The bigger question may be is there anyone on Council or in authority who has the courage to do the right thing. Or are they going to do a cover up? or a flyby as in the previous instance.
ReplyDeleteNothing less than immediate termination will be acceptable. Drain the swamp !
ReplyDeleteGood to see a project moving forward without the usual delay tactics from council. Whoever issued the permit should be mayor. No more red tape.
ReplyDeleteTo 2:45 The idea of less red tape is worth considering, but only if it is applied across the board to everyone rather than to a few friends. You continue to throw out the same lame distractions and misdirection and red herring.
ReplyDeleteTwenty five or more years ago there were accusations that the "old guard" in Tofino did what they wanted, and acted like they own the place. Suggestions of insider favouritism were common. Was it true or false? Or was it just resentment.
Now we hear of the same kind of accusations of crony capitalism with a new set of officials and new set of entrepreneurial overlords in place Is it true or false? Maybe we will find out this time. Maybe you all will be singing " meet the new boss, same as the old boss" But I am sure of one thing. "Y'all bin fooled agin"
In some of the old days there was out right cash in a bag slid under the table to get things done faster. no names.
ReplyDeleteEventually the bagman was caught and We thought we went back to the concept of fairness and all applicants treated equally.
Although Cronyism worked back then too.
Then we had an inspector of municipalities and an ombudsman to look into abuses of this nature.
Somebody did away with both of those offices so now we have a bunch of greedy little kids with no supervision helping themselves and their friends with whatever they can get away with. Like here now.
We can't have the chosen few doing whatever they feel like and The rest of us forced to put our feet in the fire if we dare to apply to move a bush or a rock...
And the elected chosen few just put the rest of us into long-term debt hell to keep us off the streets and too terrified to complain.
Some people can subdivide with relative ease. Others have to wait for five to seven years. Some people get a sign permit right away, others have to wait. Some bylaws are enforced and others are not.
ReplyDeleteSome businesses have sandwich boards while others are prohibited from such signage.
There is nothing in the District of Tofino that remotely resembles a level playing field.
Live/park/sleep in someone's driveway for $900/mo. = illegal but happening everywhere.
DeleteLive/park/sleep in an otherwise empty,quiet, unused between 11-6, muni surf parking lot = illegal but get regularly stalked, harrassed, and a file opened on you (public enemy #1.) by the Orwellian ByLaw.
This town is full of hypocrites who don't deserve a working class.
They want to sit on their VR thrones while their home owner equity does the work.
Make your own coffee/beds/food...
Clean your own overpriced vacation rentals..
YOU ABSOLUTE HYPOCRITES!!!
Fear not citizens of Tofino. The Mayor herself will get to the bottom of it. Never was there a more crooked arrow slid from the quiver of disrepute. Her fame is caste in the hard metal of bylaw manipulation itself. If anyone can get to the bottom of this sordid affair, it is surely she, who can dive deeper than anyone, who is the one to figure it out. If you want to get to the bottom of things hire a bottom dweller
ReplyDeleteThere is no downside in this matter. The DOT gets millions in dccs , building and development permit fees and increased property taxes on an operating campsite.The owners get to engage in free enterprise and contribute to the community. That property can not stay idle forever.
ReplyDeletei beg your pardon the downside is the campground will bankrupt the water system.
ReplyDeleteand create a sewage backup mess.
9:08. Everything you say about this particular matter is basically true. However, the same could be said about every other development application that was denied by council over the past two decades. Your arguments could even be used to justify the short term rentals at South Chesterman's......and we all know how that turned out.
ReplyDeleteMy point, is that the law should apply to all, equally.
That doesn't seem to be the case here.
I don't believe there are any DCC's involved, but in any event, the issue is not whether it is desirable to resurrect the old campground. The issue is whether or not dealings with the DOT are on the up and up. The possibility that we can not trust public officials to carry out their responsibilities in a fair and unbiased manner is plenty of downside.
ReplyDeleteIf you can't understand the difference your vision must be clouded by self interest.
That property would make a great public park, for off-leash dogs, along with the south end of Cox Bay beach. Why couldn't the District purchase it and get that project under way? All the trees could be protected, the dogs would be totally happy, it would only take the desire of council to have the vision to see the future and the aspirations to make it happen. The cost would be less than $20 million, we could just borrow the money and pay for it later by raising taxes a few percentage points. Well worth the cost for a much needed facility. Even Ucluelet has an off-leash dog park, the residents of Tofino should have one too!
ReplyDeleteOr... long term camping for seasonal workers who come year after to keep your businesses making money? People who work the front lines to keep the town running?
DeleteNo... for sure, the dogs are more important...
In fact, since the district quit doing animal control...
Dogs can roam freely. So long as it seems they're not sleeping in a van, dogs have more rights than the rolling homeless.
The original campground property was in the regional district and had its own water supply from Meares Island. No one seemed to care how many campsites there were - 600 or so.
ReplyDeleteWhen the district expanded its boundaries to the park thereby taking in the campground I don't think anyone considered the water situation.
Eventually the district cut off the the campgrounds water supply insisting that it connect to municipal services as required by law.
At that time there was loads of water if you could pay for it.
Once the camp ground ceased operations any impact on the water was a non issue.
The water situation has changed dramatically since then.
Only an idiot would think that it's just fine for a 500 unit campground to flash up in the next few years and there wouldn't be water problems for the whole town. Give 100 gallons consumption per day per campsite.
It is irresponsible and dangerous to give the green light to the new campground without a comprehensive impact study on the water and sewer systems. Despite not requiring a coastal impact Study as required for every single other beachfront beachfront property in the development permit area. this is wrong.
the development permit area was put in place all along the waterfront from Mackenzie Beach to the park.
DCCs were certainly going to be applied to Parkbridges project so why wouldn't they apply to the new surf Grove project?
Something is definitely not right here.
The original campground property was in the Regional District, but it was also in the Clayoquot Waterworks District. The district of Tofino did not expand its boundary to the Park because at the time it didn,t exist. It was the Village of Tofino, which stopped at the Esso Gas station The Village of Tofino amalgamated with the Clayaoquot Waterworks District to create the new District of Tofino.
ReplyDeleteThe reason for the amalgamation was simple. The Clayoquot Waterworks district had water rights on Ginnard creek, they applied successfully to a Federal Gov,t programme for money to construct a water system. At the same time, the Village of Tofino applied to the same gov't programme, and was also approved for money to fund a water system. The Federal gov't realized this was inefficient and offered to fund one system for all if the two areas amalgamated. The sewer collection and outfall was also constructed at that time serving both areas which would be called the District of Tofino. The water situation with the campground and all 500 sites was fully factored into the deal.
All occupied properties were required by law to connect to the new system to ensure there were enough users to pay for it.s operation and maintenance. The campgrounds owner was illegaly using water from Ginnard Creek and was cut off. The new system provided plenty of water for all areas at the time. Also at that time the Engineers designing the system required some quidlines in terms a plans and potentials, so reasonable capacity lines could be put in place to different areas depending on their long term designation. Cox Bay side of the Highway was designated for Tourist commercial. Chestermans Beach was designated for Residential and Mackenzie Beach was designated as Tourist Commercial. These designations, as in an OCP were made by the Clayoquot Waterworks District prior to the construction of the system and continued on into subsequent OCP's of the new District of Tofino.
Of course as time went by the different councils of the new District of Tofino had to make their own land use decisions for the whole of the new District of Tofino as they thought appropriate
Great times. Great vision building a new community. Ya should'a been there.
Parkridge's proposal triggered DCC's because it required new zoning. Not sure if that would apply to the use of the campground as a campground for which it is already zoned. All commercially zoned property requires a DP for any new development or any significant reno.
The solution is obvious. Issue a temporary use permit . No DCCs , no public hearing, no environmental impact study. Perfect.
ReplyDelete4:29 is more correct for sure....thank you
ReplyDeleteCorrection. Dccs are involved when new lots are created $ per lot, or when commercial space is built $per sq. ft, or when strata title units are created on one lot, $per unit. If I remember Parkridge proposed lease lots. Long term lease lots would be considered as a kind of lot creation and be subject to some subdivision requirements.
ReplyDeleteThe water and sewer issues are a big concern. The bigger issue however is that beautiful Cox Bay will never be the same for local residents to enjoy. The bay will resemble Miami Beach with another 1500 plus beach goers. Line up and take a number to surf!
ReplyDelete7:02 Everything was way better before you.
ReplyDeleteBring back the horses ! Nothing like the trail covered in shit.
ReplyDeleteThat shit kept a lot of "lookie loos" away from the beach, as did the owners penchant for carrying.
ReplyDeleteI am confused - it was an operating campground and would have had to pay DCCs at its time of creation . . . why would DDCs be required again? If you had a house that you left empty for 20 years and then one day decided to visit it again you wouldn't expect to have to pay development or permitting costs, would you? Feels like paying twice to me!
ReplyDeleteI agree that it would have been nice to have the Cox bay property as parkland . . . but who would have paid for this? The tax base?
I have a request in for a copy of the development permit but no response yet. A development permit is required for any new work done in a designated development permit area. The campground operated for decades before it closed so I don’t see how DCCs apply
ReplyDeletethe development permit area was only recently applied to all of the waterfront. the campground wasn't operating then so pop goes the weasel!
ReplyDeleteAll commercially zoned property is subject to a development permit, and all zoned property pays DCC's on the basis of square footage of commercial designated space at the time a bldg permit is issued. It's been that way for twenty five years or more. When the campground was created let's say 1970 or so Development Permits were not required and Dcc's were not in use either, just building permits for structures. The fact that a new owner is doing work, needs a new office, wash houses, etc., likely a new road network and entrance and campsite layout. would require a Development Permit. Dcc's would likely come into the situation as a percent of square footage. at the time of construction. Also any new layout of sites should have to comform with the current bylaws regarding site spacing size and density have as specified by bylaw. Unless an old campsite plan is still useable.
ReplyDeleteThe extension of the need for a Dp to all waterfront areas does not negate or replace the need for a Dp on all commercial zoned land. This property is not just reserecting and existing development it is doing new work at the site....Dp required. Imagine some other commercial property, a store for example, decides to do an addition or extension. Dcc's required. That's how I see it.
If you think the DP may have been fast tracked as some sort of favour to the developer, why would the issuer have required one at all if it was not needed. That makes no sense. A DP was required. A proper one, that went through council.
ReplyDeleteIf the campground was operating as a legal nonconforming use when the district expanded its boundaries to include the campground it was fine.
ReplyDeleteUntil it's ceased operations.
To re-develop the property it now needs to comply with the requirements for DCC's and all the rest of the Modern procedures.
It was in operation in the late 90s. It has always conformed with zoning.
ReplyDelete