Letter: No support for departure from OCP formula

Tuesday, October 18 2016

As a trail walker, I appreciate our parkland and support the density transfer concept behind the Potlatch proposal. I don’t, however, support the departure from a very clear OCP (Official Community Plan) formula for such transfers, or from the fact that forest land is supposed to be transferred to Resource-zoned land along with - in this case - a further 60 acres of public parkland missing from the Potlatch proposal. I think Gisele Rudischer’s recent letter (Sounder, Oct. 11) has given the conversation a useful summary of what appears to be an unfair process with uncertain outcomes - despite what opinions the Trust’s lawyer offers his clients.

I thank Gisele for the work she has put into her comparison between The Legends and the Potlatch considerations. I also thank Trustee Mamoser for her attention to some of the challenges the Potlatch proposal creates. It is alarming that our planner has not red-flagged the issues around fairness (treating two applicants differently), or the proposal’s disregard for the OCP’s governance of density transfers. 

~ David Swanson