Skip to content
Join our Newsletter

OCP amendment premature, residents say

Council is urged back to negotiating table over the Callaghan Valley Concerned valley residents say council does not have enough information yet to change the Official Community Plan to allow resident housing in the Callaghan and Cheakamus.

Council is urged back to negotiating table over the Callaghan Valley

Concerned valley residents say council does not have enough information yet to change the Official Community Plan to allow resident housing in the Callaghan and Cheakamus.

About a dozen people, some of whom had travelled north from Squamish, spoke out at a public hearing on the Callaghan before Monday’s council meeting.

A handful supported the bylaw to change the OCP, which would permit development of residential housing in the Callaghan Valley and the South Cheakamus Bench, across from Function Junction.

But the majority urged council to proceed with caution.

"I think it’s a bit scary for a lot of people in the valley to have council adopt this carte blanche," said Johnny Mikes.

"It would be polite to ask the people what they thought of it before such a big change is contemplated."

Administrator Jim Godfrey reminded council that the eventual fate of the Callaghan Valley will be decided by the people of Whistler.

"It will be decided through the Comprehensive Sustainability Plan," Godfrey said.

At present the OCP does not enable development in either site. The amendment before council would allow for that possibility in the future.

Recently the province assured Whistler that the 300-acre Callaghan site would be given to the municipality as a land bank. It is part of a legacy package that comes with bidding for the Olympic Games. It is also the preferred site for an athletes village should Vancouver win the 2010 Olympic Bid.

"The negotiations are yet to be finalized," said Godfrey.

"The intent is for Whistler to secure 300 acres. Whether or not the land is used is up to the discretion of council."

While some see the OCP amendment as a minor technical change, others are concerned that it will open the floodgates for development.

"I understand (the amendment is) necessary for the bid book... but keep it simple," cautioned incoming councillor Caroline Lamont, who was the first to speak at the public hearing.

"Don’t open the door to inappropriate bylaw amendments."

Lamont was concerned about the amendment because there was not enough information included in the staff report for council to make a fair judgement on things such as form and character of housing, yet some of those details are written into the proposed amendment.

There’s no mention of the athletes village in the staff report but at the same time it specifically mentions medium density housing that could go on the site.

She called the bylaw both "vague and detailed" at the same time.

"The bylaw should simply say what you’re all telling us," she said.

Lamont added that the report does not give consideration to other existing municipal plans.

This criticism was echoed by Kevin Rea who said that the amendment does not fit with the Whistler TAG study.

"This flies in the face of it," he said, adding that development of the Callaghan will generate more traffic on the busiest stretch of the highway, south of the village.

He asked council to go back to the negotiating table and find another 300-acres of crown land further north, even if it’s not all in one parcel.

The Callaghan, said Rea, is not the best place for either an athletes village or seasonal employee housing.

"Even if it is just a technicality to support the bid book, I think the 2010 Bid is a work in progress," he said.

"We shouldn’t have to rush into the decision."

There were some people, however, who spoke to council in support of the amendment and eventually developing in the Callaghan.

Eckhard Zeidler said he would like to see some optimism around the whole idea.

"I think we can do something remarkable in the Callaghan," he encouraged.

The Callaghan is 12 kilometres from the village and has long been considered a potential site to develop resident housing.

In recent open houses hosted by the Vancouver 2010 Bid Corporation one potential option at the site called for "a capacity, developed over time, to accommodate 8,000 permanent residents."

This was one among many options that are being discussed for the area by the 2010 Bid Corp.

While some argue against putting residential housing outside of Whistler, the flip side is that there continues to be a shortage of housing every year.

"There is after all a waiting list of 400 people to purchase employee properties," said Garry Watson, who supported the bylaw change.

"It may, for all we know, be the only alternative."

Stuart Munro also supported the amendment on that basis.

"It’s time to put an end to housing our employees in what I call chicken coop housing," he said, although he was surprised that there was no plan as yet to build detached single family homes in the area.

If the change is to go through Bob Brett spoke out in support of a sunset clause, an idea was first suggested by councillor Ken Melamed.

A sunset clause would reverse the OCP amendment if certain conditions are not met.

Brett also wanted council to go back to the negotiating table with the government or the International Olympic Committee to look at more options and he urged council not to talk about specific areas at this time.

Other concerned citizens living south of the Callaghan also had a chance to speak their minds at the public hearing. They said a residential development there would only bring more effluent south to Squamish, which will have crucial environmental impacts.

Council gave first and second reading to the amendment on Nov. 4. It is set to come up for consideration of third reading before the newly elected council on Dec. 16.