After a presentation from the proponents and a discussion of whether the Watermark rezoning application was compliant, the four city councillors in attendance recommended against rezoning.
“Now I guess we have to figure out how to make what’s there work, we’ll add wings and build something,” a frustrated proponent Bernie Walsh later told The News.
“It’s not what we wanted to do, it’s what they’re forcing us to do,” he said of the current tourist commercial zoning which allows hotels but not the mixed residential, commercial they were applying for.
“We could build a big three story building across the front, but we’re not going to do that just to piss people off.
“We’ll look at how to make it look better and add to the property,” he said, indicating they are considering two story modular wings.
During the presentation to council at Monday’s meeting, proponent Michelle Cloghesy said they felt they answered the community’s concerns with two view corridors, beach access and a Beachside Drive traffic solution.
She said the proposal added amenities including dedication of foreshore as park, a 20 metre wide public promenade down the middle and $500,000 to the city for public projects. She said it was also ground and people oriented, unlike their neighbour The Beach Club.
Staff recommended denying the re-zoning on the basis that it didn’t fit under the current official community plan (OCP) and likely wouldn’t fit under the coming new one.
There were also questions about the amount of commercial space and the plan to build the eight buildings in phases, making it hard to ensure the inclusion of commercial at the end. Staff also warned the owner may want to subdivide the property as the buildings were built — something Walsh denied.
Councillor Sue Powell said she agreed with staff’s recommendation, that it was non-OCP compliant and the residential portion should be on the beach side of the property rather than toward the road.
“This is the toughest decision I’ve had to make so far on council,” said Carrie Powell-Davidson.
She said she liked much of the proposal but they have a well paid staff and consulted with lawyers and there were still “a lot of unanswered questions … this just isn’t ready to go.”
“Of course that’s a good thing, that’s what the majority wanted,” said Charna Macfie, president of the Parksville Residents Association.
“A lot of people are saying the staff did a very good job. It comes down to the application not being compliant.”
She said something like a lower end motel might help bring tourists into the community in this tough economy and that changing market conditions and ongoing OCP work could have a big impact on the property’s future.
“Personally I think council did a good job,” said Jason Granger, president of SEE (Social, Economic, Environmental) Parksville which was formed recently to take a more positive approach to city issues than other groups which they say automatically say no to everything.
“As a group we’re not trying to champion one project, we just want people to be aware of the issues and all the details should be considered.”
He said there appeared to be outstanding issues with the proposal, that city staff did their due diligence and that denying re-zoning doesn’t mean there won’t be changes on the property.
Walsh said his frustration with the city administration and council is common among developers he has talked to in the area and he’s not optimistic the current development process review will help.
Walsh said they wouldn’t likely bring another proposal back to the city, at least until after a “change of blood,” among both staff and council.
With councillors Teresa Patterson and Al Greir absent from the committee of the whole meeting, the four remaining unanimously recommended denying the application, which will come back to the Mar. 21 regular meeting for the final vote.
