I am totally against Bylaw 851. Lot 9b is one of the more contentious lots that Trilogy wishes to develop. It is designated "Working forest" in our OCP to support our claim to being "the Village in the Forest". Residents agreed that they wanted to keep the forest backdrop to the Village as well as keep the working forests as part of a stable economic base. Once that forest land is removed from the working forest base for housing, it will be gone from that use forever. I used to think that clearcuts were a threat to the community because they ruin the natural ecosystem for a long time and they look awful. But they do get planted and grow into new forests and provide jobs for local forest workers. Just recently, I realized that development is the threat to our working forest, not clearcutting.

If Council goes ahead on this bylaw, all the other forest land owners will be stepping forward to move their lands out of "working forest" and into residential. Local landowners have already had their surveyors out measuring up the plantations off the Comox Lake Road. And then what will be Cumberland's branding? "The Village in the middle of a housing development?" Council is setting a dangerous precedent in considering this change in land use. There is no discussion in the report of the environmental loss of 150 acres of forested slopes with sensitive wetlands at the bottom. The hydrology of the site will change massively once the trees are gone above.

The report talks of 1,440 people living on Lot 9b, yet it also says that doesn't count the flex-units and the secondary suites/dwellings. If we add these in, it's more likely to be 2,040 people, thus making our population 4,908, not including any residential on lots 2, 3,4,5,6 and 8. Of course, we also have other landowners within the Village preparing to apply for residential uses of their land. How big do we want the population of Cumberland to be? This development on Lot 9b alone could almost double our population.

The citizens of Cumberland made it really clear that they want relatively limited residential growth in order to keep the "intimacy" of the historic community. (Objective3) According to their suggestions, Policy 3.3.1 of the OCP establishes a residential containment boundary "as a means of containing expansion and managing population growth". It was a fundamental basis of the OCP. The plan was to have higher density on the residential reserve lands to bring the population to 5000.

Even though the report talks about the residents of Lot 4 being able to walk to the downtown core, many of the larger lots are not within walking distance for school aged children. The report acknowledges that only 25% of the development is within a 10 minute walking distance of the main street, whilst 75% are a 20 minute walk away, a walking distance not within the inclination of the average person. We will be creating a car dependant community on the hillside. There are no real details about the trails through lot 9, although it says the hillside is too steep for bike trails.

I have concerns about 4 story multifamily units built on the flats made of wood, stone and corrugated metal. They do not fit the scale and character of the historic village. I would like to know why on page 7 of the report why would the entirety of Lot 9b become a multi-family development permit area?

I also have concerns about the Village Park being reconfigured so that a road can go in to the development. The BMX Track would be removed and rebuilt somewhere else. The park already has many uses and it's hard to see how we could give up some of its land base to a major road. Also it is still not known if the Canadian Wildlife Service who holds the covenant on these "eco-gifted" lands would be willing to allow a road to pass through them. It is not clear why they have not yet been contacted. If they do not allow the road to go in, the report states that accessing the entire development from one access point on Ulverston Avenue will not be feasible.

The infrastructure to service such a sprawling development is unsustainable according to Smart Growth principles. It will also involve some complicated engineering in order to supply the pressure for firefighting water flows up top whilst keeping reasonable water pressures on the flats. Whilst the developer will pay for the initial costs, it will be the taxpayers of Cumberland who will be paying for the upgrades in twenty or thirty year's time.

Although the Master Water Plan is complete, it is not clear yet if the Village can supply both water and sewage treatment to Lot 9b.

QUESTION: At what point are amenities being spoken of? Surely it is difficult for Council to move ahead on this without knowing the financial incentives.

I will be saying no to Bylaw 851.