Four-plex proposal bylaw turned down

By Richard Rolke - Vernon Morning Star Published: January 13, 2009

A controversial housing project in Okanagan Landing has been scrapped, but that may not stop development. In a 4-3 vote Monday, Vernon council shot down a bylaw that would have changed the zoning on an Okanagan Avenue property from mobile home residential to four-plex residential. “The residents were clear they weren’t in favour of it,” said Mayor Wayne Lippert, who voted against the bylaw. The developer had been proposing 63 single-family, duplex and four-plex units on the 6.49-acre lot. What council’s decision means is that the existing zoning remains in place and the property could be developed with mobile homes or traditional wooden homes. “My concern is they (residents) may not realize what could happen now,” said Lippert. Under existing zoning, the property owner would build up to eight units per acre without going back to the city for approval.

As a result, Lippert says the city will have no way of addressing residents’ concerns about drainage, density or preserving wetlands. “There wouldn’t be any protection for the residents now,” he said. Had rezoning been approved, city staff would have insisted that the developer provide geotechnical and hydrological reports on the potential impact on neighbouring septic systems, yards, vegetation and water supply. Joining Lippert in voting against rezoning were Councillors Jack Gilroy, Patrick Nicol and Bob Spiers. “The character of that neighbourhood is jeopardized,” said Nicol, adding that density needs to be decreased in Okanagan Landing. “That was the lesson out of the official community plan which we spent millions on.” Spiers was also worried that the development would negatively impact the scope of the neighbourhood. “This is one of the last vacant pieces of land designated for mobiles,” he said.

In favour of rezoning were Councillors Buffy Baumbrough, Shawn Lee and Mary-Jo O’Keefe.“I thought it was a good project. I thought it would add value to the neighbourhood,” said Lee. Residents had expressed concern that development would disrupt wildlife using the property, but that wasn’t a primary issue for Baumbrough. “It’s not of very high quality (natural space) for the city. We can’t justify saving it,” said Baumbrough, adding that the developer would have provided enhanced wetlands. The developer has suggested he would be willing to sell the property to the neighbours for green space, and Lippert is encouraging the residents to pursue that option.