Sunshine Coast Regional District (SCRD) directors didn’t make a decision last week on whether to approve a development variance permit for the Halfmoon Bay General Store – not because of what was contained in the staff report, but because of what was left out.
Directors were supposed to weigh in on staff recommendations to approve the permit that would make way for the property’s buildings to be restored, repaired and added to, but SCRD chair and Halfmoon Bay director Lori Pratt asked instead that the decision be deferred until next month “to make sure we have covered off concerns that have been received [and] to make sure the applicants have heard them.”
The SCRD received about 50 submissions related to the project located at 5642 Mintie Rd. in Halfmoon Bay, with 30 people in favour and 11 opposed. The letters initially were to appear in the Nov. 12 planning committee meeting agenda package but were replaced by a one-page summary of comments.
During the meeting, planning general manager Ian Hall said there were issues with some of the letters “in terms of timing, capacity and privacy,” since some contained “names and other topics that are subject to privacy considerations.” The letters had been circulated to the board of directors, said Hall, adding staff does read and consider everything that’s received.
Hall also noted not all issues raised were relevant to the proposed variances.
Sechelt director Darnelda Siegers said she would have preferred to have the letters introduced and the privacy issues redacted.
Pratt said while she was confident staff accurately summarized the comments, “I feel it’s prudent from a governance standpoint to take a step back, to maybe defer this to a future meeting sooner rather than later to make sure we have covered off concerns.”
Concerns outlined in the agenda summary included that the project is “out of scale of the existing buildings and business,” that there are already negative impacts from the business, such as traffic congestion and on-street parking, a lack of loading space and vehicles blocking hydrant access, noise, pedestrian hazards, loss of privacy and ocean views, and garbage.
Some letters also noted the variances would “further contravene the zoning bylaw,” and the “existing uses on the property are perceived as non-confirming to the zoning bylaw,” according to the summary.
Economic opportunity, shopping convenience, visitor amenities, historical revitalization and “strengthening the vitality of the existing community hub” were the in-favour points listed in the one-page summary. People also supported the need for the store in the community and “such facilities can continue to coexist with surrounding residential neighbourhoods,” said the summary.
Staff recommended issuing the variance permit, which would reduce setbacks to between 0.3 and 0.1 metres from five – something the location of the building makes it impossible to do anyways, according to staff.
