Summerland development application

[fluffy]

It will be interesting to watch this one play out. A developer is looking to place a retirement living complex in Bristow Gulch, a bowl-shaped piece of land directly west of the Yacht Club in lower town. I grew up just a stone's throw from there, and the land in question is surround on three sides by high, steep clay cliffs, as far as I know the area in question is "red zone" due to landslide hazard, as well as being ALR land. For a council that was elected on a platform of preserving agricultural land you would think that denial of the application would be a foregone conclusion, but they have cleared a path to continue with the process rather than shut it down outright. One has to wonder if they're just being thorough or if they're eyeballing the three million in development cost charges?

[Giants Head]

This piece of land is not in the ALR. It does have agricultural zoning and that is something that council can change with just four votes.

[fluffy]

Didn't know that, GH. The cliff stability issue is probably a bigger consideration at this point. That's very close to where the slide was in the early seventies that took out a chunk of lower town.

[fluffy]

Actually, after a look see the cliff stability may not be as big an issue as I thought. My memory of the area wasn't very accurate. The surrounding hillsides have stuffed considerably to the point where the risk of a major slide looks minimal. I'm guessing this will be a battle of philosophy, not unusual for Summerland.

[Giants Head]

The biggest engineering hurdle that I see with this development will be to protect and not to disturb the spring that feeds the Trout Hatchery. There is very accurate and detailed records about this one time government run fish hatchery that go back about 75 years. The potential increase in money to the town from development cost charges and taxes will be huge. This will be interesting to watch as it plays out.

[Anonymous123]

This is great for the community. If this one flies then maybe more will come in to Summerland. Lord knows it's not attractive as a tourist destination.

[fluffy]

I agree that it would be an economic boost for the community, but I'm interested in seeing how council will treat it.

[twobits]

I agree that it would be an economic boost for the community, but I'm interested in seeing how council will treat it.

Isn't that already pretty evident by who voted how?

[fluffy]

Isn't that already pretty evident by who voted how?

I'm thinking it's still too early to tell. They've voted to allow progress past first reading of some required amendments and bylaw changes, but that's just an opening skirmish in what will likely prove to be another pitched battle between the growth and no-growth fronts.

[Giants Head]

I don't see this being a pitched battle at all. The combatants here will be the NIMBYs that live in the immediate area and a small group of No Growthers. I see the community looking at the dollars that will flow into the city coffers and get on board. This is different than the large ALR exclusion that the last council tried to pass that cost them all their seats at the table. I would challenge anyone to come up with a better development than this one that will put as many dollars into the tax base with as little tax payers dollars being spent by council. The last time Summerland had an opportunity for a tax base expansion was the Prison proposal and that was not pursued with any real gusto.

[fluffy]

This is different than the large ALR exclusion that the last council tried to pass that cost them all their seats at the table.

Is it? The principle is the same. The last election was fought on the basis that farmland was to be defended at all costs, even though much of the land in question in the proposed "land swap" hasn't been used for agricultural purposes for years, and the land that is still used for agricultural purposes wouldn't have been prevented from continuing to be used for that purpose as long as the owners chose to. I agree that the proposed development would be a significant economic boon to the community, but should council allow it to proceed that would be a significant departure from the principles they were elected on. That would make me wonder if those principles were merely a convenient tool to gain office, or if their principles are for sale for the right price.

[/stir]

[Giants Head]

Fluffy.... I agree with you 100 percent. This will be interesting to watch. The one thing that is missing with this application compared to the ALR land swap is the unspoken about Elephant in the room. With the land swap there was two sitting Councillors that would of benefitted from the removal of their property from the ALR if the proposal has gone thru. Almost every conversation I had with people during that time frame this issue came up and people didn't like it. I still feel that if it had been presented with out this potential conflict of interest the outcome might of been different. I was disappointed with that council for not seeing this as a problem, it made them look like the amature hour when it came to local politics.

[fluffy]

You're talking about councilors Halquist and Christopherson ? Did they not recuse themselves from all votes and discussions pertaining to the landswap?

I don't want to re-open the landswap debate, suffice to say I'm of the opinion that many who opposed it did so for political agendas and not preservation of farmland.

[fluffy]

Does sewage and graywater from lower town go to the treatment plant in Trout Creek?

[Giants Head]

The storm and gray water will go to the sewer treatment plant. The surface water from the catchment area of roofs and parking lots will probably end up in the lake after going thru a separator to clean it up.