Despite best efforts to adopt zoning amendments that would lead to the approval of Pemberton’s Parkside development, council couldn’t agree on recommendations from staff.
At the Oct. 8 regular council meeting, Village of Pemberton (VOP) staff recommended dropping a proposed covenant requirement restricting the percentage of single family dwellings at Parkside. Slated for Den Duyf Park, the project would see a 33-lot subdivision with housing spanning duplexes and triplexes, co-housing and single-family homes. The last time it came to council was May 28, when it received third reading.
During that meeting, two covenants were discussed: securing community amenity contributions and restricting the percentage of single-family homes. The second covenant saw a divided mayor and council, and months later, they still haven’t found harmony.
In May, Mayor Mike Richman and Councillor Ted Craddock were concerned over impeding development if the housing market moves in a different direction. Coun. Laura Ramsden, Katrina Nightingale and Jennie Helmer were in favour because, they argued, including a covenant on the percentage of single-family homes would in theory still meet the growing community’s housing needs.
The same song and dance played out once again, with neither side budging on their positions.
The VOP’s development services manager, Scott McRae, said staff were recommending dropping the covenant because of market trends.
“Most hillside developments are developing with at least two dwelling units, and it also avoids the added burden on the title of the property that could potentially pose challenges for financing,” he said.
Craddock was in favour of staff’s recommendations, saying the VOP has provided opportunity for other types of housing in Pemberton that are currently for sale but not built.
“I don’t know if that indicates the lack of market for this kind of project or if financing is a problem … I think if we put restrictions on that, we may not see this project go ahead like a couple of others in the community. So, I'm prepared to support it,” he said.
Nightingale, for her part, remained hesitant to move forward with a staff recommendation that would prevent the kind of density she argued Pemberton needs moving forward.
“For me, the aspirational plan, with its diversity of housing and the density, speaks to two really important things. And the first is that it provides that missing middle option that we need in the duplex and triplex options. And the second thing is that the density is really necessary to get transit out to this important development hub,” she said.
Coun. Ramsden said if the covenant doesn’t work, they could remove it.
“That's something that I do believe we can address down the road,” she said.
Helmer echoed these points and added that a covenant is one of the few tools local governments have to influence a development’s trajectory.
Richman reiterated his agreement with the desire for a diversity of housing, but once again aired concerns over “encumbering” development.
“My concern is that … in this pursuit for perfection, we end up encumbering the development to a point where it doesn't have the viability to get off the ground and supply what we want,” he said.
Seeing disagreement in the room, he proposed staff seek more information from the developer on the feasibility of the covenant.
“I came in prepared to support no covenant, but if somebody would like to move in a direction where we send staff back to understand, to get a better understanding from the developer, I would support that direction,” Richman conceded.
Staff were directed to go back to the developer and determine if there’s a middle way forward, given instructions to inquire whether revising the number of restricted residential lots could help and to determine whether the covenant would be a significant impediment to financing.
It’s expected they will have an answer by the next council meeting, Oct. 22.
