SUBMISSION TO JdF LAND USE COMMITTEE
November 13, 2007
Shirley

To: Land Use Committee Members

I would like to speak to two aspects of the Rural Lands discussion, firstly in general terms from the perspective of a rural A property owner, and secondly to the specifics of potential changes to the rural A zoning.

Large scale developments underway in Otter Point and the recent fiasco over the sale of WFP lands in Jordan River have added a sense of urgency to the process of drafting zoning bylaws for East Sooke, Otter Point and Shirley / Jordan River. Regardless of our particular feelings about zoning changes, I believe most of us would agree that it is important to plan now to make parks, wildlife corridors and common greenspace a part of our vision for the future. Commonly held greenspace has not latterly been an important feature of rural communities, but as urbanization spreads west we will need to accord it greater priority.
A move to minimize development per se will not accomplish that goal. Parks and public greenspace must be obtained through acquisition and we all pay a tax to that end. Public use of private land is something quite different but could easily be secured. Given the opportunity for dialogue without political interference I believe community members could negotiate creative and successful solutions to access trail networks and community greenspaces.
Currently Rural A property owners find themselves in a very defensive position. Many have made long term investments and improvements and pay taxes on their properties, which contribute to the rural landscape of the community for all its members. However they are in the minority in their communities. They have much to lose here and find themselves at the mercy of the majority. I am skeptical of the political mandate that was secured through a “questionnaire” in 2006, because I believe any answer at all can be procured, depending on how it is worded. Nevertheless it seems to be the justification , in part, for a rather zero tolerance attitude towards owners who would like to take advantage of their Rural A zoning.
I understand and wholly support the urgent need to regulate the activity of those developers who subdivide and develop large tracts of land for profit and then move on to the next acquisition. I am dismayed to find that many small Rural A properties in the heart of our communities may be tarred with the same brush.
By way of a solution I would like to suggest that the CRD consider a longterm development allocation strategy. It may be possible to project the maximum development potential for property currently zoned as Rural A and to allocate a fixed portion of that to larger scale commercial development, so that there would still be room well into the future for longtime owners of Rural A properties with much smaller development potential to realize their goals. This would satisfy the sense of urgency in our communities to curb widespread commercial development without stripping all Rural A owners of their zoning.

With regards to the specifics of any proposed zoning changes for Rural A I would make the following observations:
- Currently 4 on 10 developments have the potential to create exactly the kind of common greenspace which might lend itself to access for trails, and is more in keeping with the rural landscape we’re trying to preserve;

- I am adamantly opposed to subjecting owners of 4 ha or less to an expensive subdivision process or to payment of any amenities; it will be prohibitive and unfair.

- Much of the land within the Rural A inventory may prove to be unsuitable for development because of regulations governing water and sewer for example, and the new development permit criteria contained in the OCPs;

- At the recent CRD open house, having read the staff report to this Committee and the proposed Amendment to 2040 developed and posted on the CRD webpage, I had expected to have an opportunity to respond to this proposal. I was disappointed to find it wasn’t even up for discussion. Within the context of the direction given to planning staff I believe the Rural A/ Rural B Plan is considered by them to be the best solution in response to all the questions and concerns they have fielded from the public. It is sufficiently developed for me to understand what is being proposed and for the most part I think it satisfies the concerns of those people who own 4ha or less.

- Owners of properties larger than 4ha are not fully accommodated by this plan. I request that the CRD allow current Rural A property owners to register their individual properties as excepted from zoning changes in order to protect them from downzoning. The precedent for this already exists as there are numerous examples of it in 2040.

Finally, I am confused about where we stand in this process. I am disturbed at the intent of some of the options floated at the open house and I am concerned that we may be nearing the end of the “public consultation” phase of this process with no clear idea of what specific zoning changes are being proposed to the Land Use Committee. I hope the public will still have an opportunity to respond to a clear and well developed zoning proposal before it goes to public hearing.

Thank you for your consideration,

Anne Best