Letter to the Bowen Island Undercurrent (04-Apr-2008)
We urge council to exercise its authority to require the owners of the Cape Roger Curtis (CRC) lands to withdraw their application for a 58-lot subdivision for the following reasons:
The Cape Roger Curtis Trust Society (CRCTS) has received legal advice that it is highly unusual for municipal councils to enter into a rezoning process while there is a subdivision application on the table. The public continues to perceive the subdivision application for 58 lots as a real threat if municipal council does not agree with the rezoning proposals of the CRC owners.
Community groups (including CRCTS) have spent considerable volunteer time attending meetings and reviewing and commenting on the CRC proposals, with a view to ensuring that the rezoning of these lands meets the goals and objectives of Bowen Islanders.
The subdivision of these lands into 58 ten-acre lots does not meet the goals and objectives of the Bowen Island community as expressed in the Official Community Plan (including the specific requirements set out for the CRC Development Permit Area), nor does it meet the stated public interest as expressed in the council’s resolution of February 2006 (Municipal Framework for Planning the Future Use of the CRC Lands).
The fact that the approving officer has neither approved nor rejected the 58 ten-acre lot subdivision does not relieve council of its responsibility to make it clear to the owners that a condition of entering the rezoning process is withdrawal of its subdivision application.
Given the length of time since the initial subdivision application (September 4, 2004) and the lack of any response from the CRC owners to the conditions set out in the July 7, 2006 letter from Michael Rosen, there is considerable doubt as to whether the application would be legally protected by the one year time period under section 943 of the Local Government Act, despite the extensions granted by the municipal planners.
Without demanding the withdrawal of the 58-lot subdivision application, council appears to be acting from a position of weakness, which inevitably affects its negotiation strategy. This is not serving the interests of the community.
If the current subdivision application is not legally valid (also based on good legal advice), then why not remove it from the table?
Pamela Dicer, Peter Drake, Stephen Foster, Jean Jamieson, Marion Moore, Nerys Poole, Jan Wells
Directors, Cape Roger Curtis Trust Society
Archived materials
Posts
- 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
Documents
- 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
Letters
- 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?
April 4, 2008
Bowen Island Undercurrent
We urge council to exercise its authority to require the owners of the Cape Roger Curtis (CRC) lands to withdraw their application for a 58-lot subdivision for the following reasons:
The Cape Roger Curtis Trust Society (CRCTS) has received legal advice that it is highly unusual for municipal councils to enter into a rezoning process while there is a subdivision application on the table. The public continues to perceive the subdivision application for 58 lots as a real threat if municipal council does not agree with the rezoning proposals of the CRC owners.
Community groups (including CRCTS) have spent considerable volunteer time attending meetings and reviewing and commenting on the CRC proposals, with a view to ensuring that the rezoning of these lands meets the goals and objectives of Bowen Islanders.
The subdivision of these lands into 58 ten-acre lots does not meet the goals and objectives of the Bowen Island community as expressed in the Official Community Plan (including the specific requirements set out for the CRC Development Permit Area), nor does it meet the stated public interest as expressed in the council’s resolution of February 2006 (Municipal Framework for Planning the Future Use of the CRC Lands).
The fact that the approving officer has neither approved nor rejected the 58 ten-acre lot subdivision does not relieve council of its responsibility to make it clear to the owners that a condition of entering the rezoning process is withdrawal of its subdivision application.
Given the length of time since the initial subdivision application (September 4, 2004) and the lack of any response from the CRC owners to the conditions set out in the July 7, 2006 letter from Michael Rosen, there is considerable doubt as to whether the application would be legally protected by the one year time period under section 943 of the Local Government Act, despite the extensions granted by the municipal planners.
Without demanding the withdrawal of the 58-lot subdivision application, council appears to be acting from a position of weakness, which inevitably affects its negotiation strategy. This is not serving the interests of the community.
If the current subdivision application is not legally valid (also based on good legal advice), then why not remove it from the table?
Pamela Dicer, Peter Drake, Stephen Foster, Jean Jamieson, Marion Moore, Nerys Poole, Jan Wells
Directors, Cape Roger Curtis Trust Society