District of Sechelt council has decided to bring the original cluster housing proposal by Synergy Homes back to its March 2 council meeting for possible second and third reading despite previously denying the development at a committee meeting on Feb. 9.
At that time, council moved to deny the plan after hearing public outcry over the 25-lot strata subdivision planned for Selma Park between Pam Road and Snodgrass Road.
Concerns raised by opponents of the plan were increased traffic, increased density, possible drainage issues and a self-contained septic system that could falter.
Council denied the plan on Feb. 9, forcing the proponent to come up with a new plan that fit within the current zoning of the area. Without a rezoning needed, the new plan would be given the go-ahead by the District planner, without any input from council.
Under the current zoning, the new plan could include more houses (28) serviced by a package treatment plant or fewer, larger properties with individual septic fields and tanks.
At the Feb. 16 council meeting councillors argued they did not understand what the proponent could do under the current zoning and said the cluster housing development may actually be a better option for the area.
"I don't think it was articulated early on how much density they could get out of that property under the current zoning," said Coun. Keith Thirkell, noting there would be more green space with a clustered housing development, an affordable housing option and a more secure sewage treatment plant as it would be bonded and given approval by the Ministry of Environment. "I'm at the point where I'm willing to back up the bus a bit."
Councillors Warren Allan and Alice Janisch were not willing to change their minds, saying the community had spoken loud and clear that they didn't want the clustered housing development in Selma Park.
However, Mayor Darren Inkster said he heard the community wasn't happy with council's decision because a different development could take place in the area without any input from council.
"I thought the community would be happy with our decision to not support the proposal, but what I've been hearing is they're not happy because a development could still come there. So maybe it's up to council to be proactive and say this is the kind of development we want there that's more environmentally-friendly with work done on the roads rather than a development that Mr. Parfitt [District planner] approves without political input that may be what the neighbourhood doesn't want," Inkster said. "I'm uncomfortable with what the result could be if we don't have a say in it."
