Question file photo by Megan Grittani-Livingston

BCR/Signal Hill Homes proponents Bruce van Mook, left, and Garth Phare say they need clarity from Pemberton council on a few issues before deciding whether to continue pursuing their housing and mixed-use development proposal near downtown.

The proponents for the BCR Properties-Signal Hill Homes development in Pemberton say they have reached a pivotal point in the process, as they face the possibility of disappointment from a grant application to fund dyking improvements and wrestle with costs associated with the project.

Bruce van Mook and Garth Phare, long-time Pemberton residents and partners in the development proposal, approached the Village of Pemberton’s council at a Committee of the Whole meeting on Tuesday (Oct. 6) to spur dialogue about a list of costs and considerations that van Mook said could possibly make or break the project.

The comprehensive development proposal for the approximately 32-acre site has included about 462 units of new housing in a variety of forms, along with several acres of parkland, several kilometres of trails and some commercial space, all within close proximity to the Village core.

Over the past year, the proponents have been working through the rezoning and Official Community Plan (OCP) amendment process required for the development to proceed, and van Mook told The Question on Monday (Oct. 5) that he and Phare are approaching the two-year mark in working on the proposal. It’s a long-term project that could be phased in over 10 to 15 years, according to estimates from van Mook and Village staff.

Staff members have written that the development would “complement and enhance the social and economic opportunities in the community, while embracing environmental best practices.”

But this week, the proponents wanted to talk with council about the hurdles they face in what van Mook called an important meeting.

First on the list was addressing the prospect of not receiving a grant that the Pemberton Valley Dyking District (PVDD) applied for, through the Building Canada Fund, to cover the cost of improvements needed for the dyke on the northeast side of Pemberton Creek. The dyke doesn’t meet necessary safety standards to protect the Village.
The grant would cover 90 per cent of the dyke upgrading costs, while 10 per cent would have to be covered by another party. Van Mook said engineers have estimated the cost of the upgrades at around $1.5 million, though Pemberton Mayor Jordan Sturdy said he understood from the PVDD table that the bill could come at last than $1 million.

Van Mook told council that the proponents went into a holding pattern after their bylaws received third reading earlier this year, as they waited for a decision on the grant. But their optimism is flagging, and van Mook said they can’t work on the premise of a maybe.

“We’re not optimistic, and we have to move on. We’ve been waiting for a yes or no for some time now — a maybe doesn’t work for us. That’s not how business is done,” van Mook told The Question.

He said the developers are also dealing with a recently received report indicating that the project faces significant costs to get the land to the development stage, with a need to move a lot of material and replace it with structural fill.

“The cost of that is really onerous,” he told The Question.

Considering those pressures, van Mook told council the proponents would be willing to shoulder the costs of upgrading the dyke, and of building four on-site amenities — a bus staging area, a creekside park, a community garden and a bridge over Pemberton Creek. In return, van Mook said, they would seek to receive credit toward some of the Development Cost Charges (DCCs) the Village would be required to pay, which he estimated at around $2 million.

When Councillor Susie Gimse questioned whether the cost of the dyke upgrade to facilitate a development should be part of the cost of doing business, not a public safety issue, Phare asked why it wouldn’t be a problem everywhere else if it’s a problem for this project.

“I stated to the mayor, ‘Do not open that door,’” and now it is an issue, Phare said.

Van Mook also told council that a Community Amenity Contribution (CAC) is “off the table, as far as we’re concerned,” because it constitutes a significant burden, and because it has not been charged to other developments.

Adopted in July 2007, Pemberton’s policy for the CAC requests proponents of certain rezoning and subdivision applications to “address the burden which residential development imposes on demand for public facilities, services and amenities by contributing to a fund for their provision, improvement and expansion” through a monetary contribution.

The charge is $9,165 per building lot and $6,110 per multiple family dwelling, and the money goes into a fund only to be used for financing facilities such as a pool complex, arena or water park.

Caroline Lamont, the Village’s manager of development services, said the CAC hasn’t been levied yet because the specifications in the policy haven’t been met.

Van Mook said the proponents also have to factor in the absorption rate for the project — namely, how many units could potentially sell per year — which would be slower in Pemberton than, say, the Lower Mainland, potentially overburdening the developers with carrying costs.

He said he thinks some earlier issues related to off-site servicing have been settled to all parties’ satisfaction, as such costs and DCCs are charges developers expect to incur.

Sturdy and Gimse said they have seen community support for the development, and Gimse said there has been support at the council level, but all of the parties need to find a place where they are comfortable moving ahead.

“I think certainly the community wants to see this thing go ahead,” Sturdy said.

Several council members asked if they could see some of the proponents’ figures, seeking clarity on the situation before potentially giving up a substantial windfall for the community.

Councillor Ted Craddock said he didn’t feel going through the proponents’ numbers would help lawmakers make a decision, and added that waiting pushes up construction costs. Sturdy, though, raised questions about whether it is necessary to go ahead with a development right now and forego some costs instead of waiting, feeling that the prime site will inevitably be developed.

Van Mook told council that if the proponents don’t see some movement on the issues, the development can’t go ahead, adding that is how it stands. But he insisted that was “no veiled threat or anything.”

Lamont asked about clarifying the affordability of the housing, which the proponents have said is one of their goals, and she wanted to make sure everyone understands what level of affordability is being sought.

Village staff members will work with the proponents to compile a report on the outstanding issues for council discussion on Nov. 3.

Comments

Be the first to comment!