Letter to the Editor

Long-time resident calls for connecting pathway

I’ve advocated for the pathway between Upper Kelvin Grove and the village centre since 1989, not long after a young girl was fatally struck crossing the intersection at Kelvin Grove.

I not only lobbied the former property owners for such but also attempted to get the village to purchase the lot at 242 Panorama when it was for sale and create a pathway easement/access (and then resell).  Needless to say, I was unsuccessful on both counts. One small victory was to get such a pathway included in two sections of the Offical Community Plan.

The Village Approving Officer (appointed under the Land Title Act) is dutifully bound to ensure that any subdivision approval is technically compliant with local bylaws and provincial legislation ... there are also some rather subjective clauses that can be applied, some as simple as “against the public interest.”

I will assume that such criteria were met in the Approving Officer’s Preliminary Layout Review (PLR) Letter to the applicant of 250 Oceanview. I have no reason to believe otherwise.

My initial concern arose during the tail end of Council’s April 7 meeting when our approving officer replied to a question by our mayor concerning the pathway “one of the conditions in the preliminary layout review letter is that there be a road dedication to connect both sides of the community, south to the north, as a condition of subdivision.”

I misinterpreted “road dedication” to mean an actual (physical) road, rather than just an easement or access right. The Approving Officer politely corrected my mistake (as an aside, I am quite certain no one on the Panorama Place or Kelvin Grove cul-de-sacs would ever tolerate a connecting through-road under any circumstances).

I have not had the opportunity (I was well over my allotted time) to confirm with our Approving Officer as to whether the PLR’s  “road delineation” requirement satisfies the pathways criteria referenced in Bylaw 408; so that may require confirmation.

I have no issue with Chief Administrative Officer Blackwell’s response thus far, whatsoever. That said, after reading the relevant legislation, my personal interpretation is that the required firewall between the Approving Officer and Village Council is not nearly as restrictive as some might convey, but that is not my bailiwick.

I understand that many people are upset about the current activities (I’m being polite) taking place on the former Ronsley property; and rightly so, particularly in light of the tragedy that befell this village a mere 16 months ago. Unfortunately, the only recourse I currently see is to rely on the various geotechnical reports and environmental reviews that will be required via the Approval Officer’s PLR letter, as stipulated in the Land Title Act.

Philip Marsh, Kelvin Grove

The Watershed welcomes your thoughts,

and reserves the right to edit letters to the editor

for brevity, clarity and content.

Leave your comments below,

or email us at editor@lionsbaywatershed.ca 

Like what you're reading?

For as little as $5/month, you can support local independent journalism

by subscribing to The Watershed HERE.