A 59-lot subdivision
The Trust Society has perceived that there has been some misunderstanding as to what has happened since the Owners of the Cape submitted their latest application for a 59-lot subdivision on June 4, 2009.
On October 29, 2009, the Municipality’s Chief Administrative Officer, Hendrick Slegtenhorst, granted approval for a Development Permit only, but did not immediately approve the subdivision plan itself. Extensive work by the Municipality and the Owners continued on the subdivision plan. This work took about 60% of Mr. Slegtenhorst’s time. NB: As of December 10, 2009 the subdivision plan has also been approved.
By the end of August, it became clear that an immense amount of work would be needed to bring this subdivision application into line with regulations and technical requirements. It is therefore the Trust Society’s opinion that this private application should have been turned down straight away.
- June 4, 2009: 59-lot Subdivision application filed with Municipality.
- July/August 2009: Several extensions, over and above the stipulated 60-days to respond to the owner’s application, are granted by the Owners, due to various extenuating circumstances.
- August 28, 2009: CAO writes to the Owners advising them that the various issues raised in the 8 reports attached to his letter need to be addressed before favourable consideration of the subdivision plan and related elements is possible. (These excellent reports make very interesting reading. Also, the CAO cautions that he has not yet turned his mind to the question of the public interest.
- September 3, 2009: A public information meeting is held to enable the CAO to hear the public’s response to the 59-lot subdivision.
- October 29, 2009: Development Permit BM-06-2009 is issued by the Municipality. This, too, can be found as a PDF document on the municipal website. Again, this is not approval of the subdivision plan itself.
- November 9, 2009: Council appoints a Committee to assist Parks Canada (see next column). The Committee’s Terms of Reference are also approved and a Resolution passed for its Budget.
- November 20, 2009: Parks Canada staff visited Bowen Island for a tour. The Trust Society was told: how quickly Parks Canada comes here to do its review will be indicative of its degree of interest – and they have come quickly!
- Early 2010: Parks Canada will report the outcome of its November tour of Bowen to the appointed Committee.
- 14-Mar: A conservation area at Cape Roger Curtis!
- Fall 2009 update
- Legal Opinion on CRC Subdivision Application
- Parks Canada Initiative – Fall/Winter 2009
- Disappointment: The Owner’s New Proposal for Cape Roger Curtis
- Cape Trust Society praised for quality of work
- Fifty-eight-lot subdivision application for the Cape shouldn’t be on the table
- Cape Roger Curtis Trust Society Launches Wild Coast Plan 2
- CRC Plan Beyond Comprehensive
- Bowen agleam in red and green
- Why environmental inventories are insufficient for conservation planning: Comments on the 2008 PGL report on CRC
- Four-legged friend or foe? Dog walking displaces native birds from natural areas
- Mitigating and adapting to Climate Change through conservation of nature
- CRC writer ignored biological issues
- Cape Roger Curtis Biophysical Summary
- Overview Environmental Inventory
- Success Stories Show Park at Cape Roger Curtis Not Impossible
- Council Resolution Defining the Public Interest in Cape Roger Curtis
- Follow up from Dr. Karel Klinka’s Assessment of the Cape Roger Curtis Property
- Ecological Assessment and Considerations in Developing the Cape Roger Curtis Property
- CRC Trust Society makes clear its position
- Trust Society comments on Neighbourhood Plan of September 2008
- Trust Society Comments on Ekistics’ Preliminary Neighbourhood Plan and Implementation Options
- CRC Transportation Study Points to the Need for an OCP Review
- It’s all in the numbers-–hundreds of houses are just too many
- Council encouraged to instate DCCs
- Developers should be held to task
- Walk Your Talk Inside and Outside
- CRC developers upped ante unacceptable
- Transparent or veiled?