Dear mayor, council members and members of the advisory planning committee,
I am writing to request you reject the application by ANKEMAN Marchand Architects in partnership with TCD Development (town file DP-2017-09) to rezone 464 Eaglecrest Drive from single family residential (R-1).
My home on Oceanmount Boulevard borders the north side of the proposed development. Like our neighbours, my family is very concerned that the proposed zoning amendment will destroy the fabric of our community. We are particularly concerned that the magnitude of the rezoning requires comprehensive development area zone 3 (CDA-3)
Town planner Andre Boel told me rezoning to CDA-3 requires the existing OCP to go from Low Density Residential 1 to Medium Density, an increase of three levels. I ask you to reject any rezoning of the OCP.
Based on the OCP land use map, I estimate the proposal will directly affect 250 homes in Upper Gibsons and 58 in Lower Gibsons.
It is in every owner and resident’s best interests that public hearings are held after the summer holidays. Hence, I formally request that any public hearings associated with OCP zoning amendments begin no sooner than the week of September 18, 2017.
I also request that the public meetings regarding the proposed development be communicated to the 308 homes on feeder streets and not just those within 50 meters of the proposed development.
After living in Roberts Creek for nineteen years we purchased our family and retirement home on Oceanmount Boulevard in 2012 with the understanding that the adjoining property on Eaglecrest Drive was zoned single family residential R-1.
We also took into account that the town planned a walking path from Lower to Upper Gibsons along the existing water main right-of-way on the south side of 831 Oceanmount Boulevard and 464 Eaglecrest Drive. The location of the path is important to us because it provides a buffer zone between the two properties and will eventually provide nearby access to Lower Gibsons.
We and our neighbours who also border the water main right-of-way are against the town giving the future walking path to the developer.
For my family, the developer’s proposal means five and six storey buildings looming over our one story house with sight lines into our bedroom, living room, BBQ patio, yards and driveway. The same is true for our neighbours. The building would be a few meters from me.
The proposal also shows a fence along our property line and includes “garden beds, patio cooking and gathering spaces, play areas and spa terrace” alongside the development’s side of the fence. Consider how you would feel in our situation. We will all be victims of light, noise and smell pollution far greater than from a single family unit.
The proposed development will interrupt our view and that of my neighbours. For my family, we will see the side of a building instead of roof tops fitting into the form and character of the neighbourhood. We will also lose our view of the Inglis Trail green space.
Our property value will plummet due to encroachment, lost view and close proximity to high density. This proposal transfers wealth from me and surrounding home owners to the developer. The development’s taxes to the Town will be offset by lower taxes from eroded property values in Upper and Lower Gibsons.
I believe the town has a fiduciary and moral responsibility to ensure its decisions don’t reduce its citizens’ property values.
I also note that the OCP specifically says development should not be at the expense of existing views or the scale and character of the existing neighbourhood (9.5, OCP Page 54).
Plus, step 8 of the town’s Zoning amendment application guide says council members must be satisfied that the development proposal is consistent with the OCP. This proposal clearly conflicts with the OCP.
The developer purchased the 4.77 acres knowing that the existing R-1 zoning permitted 23 single family homes. He also knew the homes could be not exceed eight meters (26.2 ft) in height.
Instead of working within R-1, the developer is requesting rezoning in order to build four three-storey duplex town homes and 52 single-level apartments accessed from Eaglecrest, and 35 single-level apartments accessed from Stewart Road.
Note, the apartments are really condominiums, and “single level” means one-floor condominiums in multi-storey buildings. People living in Lower Gibsons would see six-storey buildings, not three as the developer claims.
The developer justifies the increased density based on the development leaving 56 per cent of the 4.77 acres green. If the Town accepts this argument, only multi-storey high-rise buildings would ever be built.
Besides, the argument has very little merit considering the 56 per cent consist of lawn, gardens, fountains and walkways for the property’s tenants. The green space is intended to increase the sale value of the condominiums. Its does not benefit the displaced wildlife or the people of Gibsons, who will not be welcome.
The developer’s traffic study conducted by Creative Transportation Solutions Ltd. concludes the development could increase morning rush hour by 43 vehicles and 52 in the afternoon rush hour, 78 per cent via Inglis Road to Shaw Road. The company also concluded that “vehicle access via Stewart Road and Winn Road would be challenging due to topography”. The analysis omits congestion at the Shaw Road traffic light and flow from Stewart and Winn Roads to Abbs and South Fletcher Roads.
Logic and common sense dictates high density should be located close to main arteries and not at the end of a residential area. People in Portugal recently burned to death in their cars because traffic congestion prevented them from escaping from a wildfire. I don’t want to be alarmist but the proposed development abuts Inglis Trail, climate warming is real and 250 fires are burning out of control in B.C. now.
Shaw Road was recently painted to add a parking lane and bike lanes. Two vehicles cannot pass in different directions without one driving in the bike lane. People living at Christenson Manor drive motorized and manual wheelchairs on the lanes as do other users. It is counterproductive to add vehicles to Shaw Road when you recently decided to prioritize bikers and wheelchairs over vehicles.
Gibsons is losing its youth because we lack affordable housing for young families, and it is critical we stop the outflow. This development will not mitigate the outflow in any significant way.
In his advertising, the developer is quoting $600 per square foot. $600,000 for 1,000 square feet is priced too high for the vast majority of Gibsons residents. According to the 2016 census, 75 per cent of Gibson residents work part-time and have a median after-tax income of $27,082 (pre-tax $33,593). The 25 per cent working full-time have a median employment income of $55,012 (pre-tax $59,677). The 75 per cent who need affordable housing cannot afford $30,298.80/yr ($2,524.90/month) to finance $480,000 over 25 years at 4 per cent interest, assuming 20 per cent down.
Even if the developer sold condominiums for concessionary pricing to subsidize some of the town’s citizens, the benefit would only be realized once by very few buyers and would end when they resold.
Alternatively, the developer could offer “affordable” rental units within the development. This is not a good or lasting solution. Renters can not contribute to strata council decisions and will eventually be forced out by annual rental increases negating affordability. Plus, young families need opportunities to enter the real estate market instead of spending their earnings on high rent.
The proposed condominiums are clearly too expensive for local residents and rezoning is primarily for the developer to maximize sales revenue from off-Coast purchasers. In fact, the developer’s website says “Eagle View Heights is an exclusive development of fine condominiums.”
Thank you for addressing our concerns.
Sincerely,
Bill and Julia Campbell
Oceanmount Boulevard
Thank you for the wonderful job you have done of garnering comprehensive information concerning many of the areas of life to be impacted by this gros proposal, with its attempt to confuse the real heights, depths and impact. As they say “There goes the neighbourhood” not just for us but for the animals and Shaw Road already marked for impossibility. This town council seems determined to destroy the reasons many of us moved here – silence, peace, small, trees, neighbours, unobstructed views not created by being higher than anything around, especially now that the trees are all gone. From rain forest to 6tory desert in a single generation. May our children and grandchildren forgive us.