Tell us how you really feel

A majority of Oliver town councillors pulled no punches Monday as they firmly rejected a an “absurd” nine-lot subdivision proposal.

The proponent, who requires amendments to the zoning bylaw and Official Community Plan, is seeking to carve up a onehectare lot at 5791 Sawmill Rd. in order to build a new cul-desac with nine duplexes on it.

Each unit would have a singlestall garage serving as one of two parking spaces required by the town. But that’s just not enough, according to Mayor Martin Johansen.

“I think that this kind of parking arrangement is ridiculous. To think that it’s functional is absurd. This is going to be a Gong Show with garbage cans, pickups for the big truck to get in there, the snowplows… It’s one thing to do what we need to do to get all the housing we can in Oliver, but we can’t create another problem solving another problem, and that’s what we’re doing here,” said Johansen.

“The only reason I’m going to support this is because the problem that this is going to create is only going to affect the people living in this cul-desac.”

Coun. Dave Mattes took it a step further and suggested the development is destined to become a slum.

“I hate to say it, but in the long-term this will not be a nice neighbourhood. This will not really be the neighbourhood you want to live in. This will be a rental neighbourhood of duplexes that will probably end up being run down over a period of time. That’s my prediction,” said Mattes.

“I know it meets all the rules and does all the right things, but it’s still not good for the town…. It’s good for the owner, it’s good for the people who will live there in the beginning, but it’s not good for Oliver.”

Others on council expressed a desire to see a mix of housing types, instead of all duplexes, to encourage a more diverse neighbourhood.

The lone councillor who expressed support for the plan was Terry Schafer, who noted the site is across from the town’s industrial park.

“I think to predict that this is going to become a slum is a little short-sighted and a little pessimistic,” added Schafer.

Council later voted unanimously to have staff relay its concerns to the developer in hopes the plans will change before the matter returns for a vote and potentially a public hearing on the required regulatory amendments.