Clarifications for Our Community

Clarifications for Our Community

There is a lot of inaccurate information being shared in our community these days about Anmore South. We want our residents to have the facts, so we are providing some clarifications. We encourage residents to contact the Village directly if you ever have questions or would like more information about Council decisions and activities in our community.

What you may have heard…

Clarification

“Changing the designation of Anmore, clear cut, densify and bring more than 3000 people.” There are two inaccuracies here.

  1. We don’t know where the number 3000 came from. It appears to be something a resident made up and continues to post as though it is a fact. There is no plan for 3000 residents, and there is no development application in place at this time.
  2. With an Urban designation, we could actually protect more green space by allowing more concentrated development as an option for developers – which means development in a smaller area while setting aside more land as protected areas. What that actually looks like would depend on a zoning process. As well, under the current Rural designation and RS1 zone for Anmore South, a developer can technically clear the area now to build homes, and would only have to provide a 5% park dedication to the Village – which is less than what could be negotiated under an Urban designation. With a CD zone application – which would have to come before Council for re-zoning – the Village requires 30% dedicated park space. That said, we don’t have any plans for how the land will be developed at this time.
“Lakes at risk due to new Anmore Development” There is no new development application – and no plan for a development – for Anmore South. This information is completely false – not just in terms of a development but also saying lakes are at risk.
“No one wants Urban – we all want stay Rural and Council isn’t listening to us.” This is not true. We heard a mix of feedback during the phase 1 community engagement, and that included a group of residents who support an Urban designation that fits with the character of our community, and a group of residents who said they are open to Urban but want more information before making a decision. We understand that there is a group of residents who want to stay Rural, and some of those residents don’t want any development on Anmore South. We are listening to them. But we are also listening to our other residents, and we are doing more work to review options for Anmore South. We will then come back to the community for feedback.
“There’s no point in studying options for Anmore South” Residents who participated in the community engagement consistently told Council that they want more information about what types of development could be done, what servicing would be needed and what the financial implications would be for both Rural and Urban designations. They also said they wanted Council to slow this process down and provide more opportunity for community consultation. In response to the input, we are initiating servicing and financial assessments for three development models, and we will be sharing this information with the community for future discussion.
“The former Gilic proposal for 4500 residents shows what the population increase will be under an Urban designation and this information was shared by the Village as part of the Anmore South workshops and open house.” The development application submitted by Gilic – called Burrard Commons – no longer exists. It was withdrawn before Council had an opportunity to begin its own process to review the application and initiate community engagement with residents for their input. Also, an Urban designation does not determine density – this is done through zoning. As well, the only reference to the former Gilic development during the Anmore South community engagement was to make it clear that this development is not in any way related to the current assessment for the future of Anmore South.
Council is attempting to “spot zone the southern half of Anmore” This is not a zoning exercise. Council is looking at the land use designation for the Anmore South lands, and in response to community input, is currently assessing a number of development models under both Rural and Urban designations to review the servicing and financial. impacts.  This area is currently designated as a Special Study Area as it was seen as an area that could be designated differently than the other parts of Anmore by a previous Council. Council is not even discussing zoning at this time.
Comments that there will be “environmental degradation, clear cutting of trees” under an Urban designation. This is completely false. In fact, under the current RS1 zoning with a Rural designation, the majority of the trees could be removed with only a 5% park dedication required. This compares to the options under an Urban designation that could allow for rezoning to provide for a variety of housing types and would give the Village the ability to negotiate significantly more park dedication. The models being assessed in the current study are based on protecting approximately 50% of the area through parkland dedication – 10 times as much preservation as required under the current designation and zoning.
There’s been “inadequate data and an overall failure to communicate” to Anmore residents. This is not accurate. The Village has been providing Anmore residents with information and status updates – both online and mailed directly to homes – since February. A key theme shared by residents who participated in the Phase 1 community engagement was that they want more data about development options and implications, as well as more opportunities to share input. In response, the Village has initiated studies to assess servicing and financial impacts of three development models. Anmore Council has deferred any decisions about the designation until the studies are complete, and the Village will be reaching out to the community for additional input in the fall.
Anmore residents do not support an Urban designation – and this is based on the sentence from the Community Engagement Summary report that, “the majority of participants in the community engagement for Anmore South do not support moving forward with an Urban designation at this time.” Several residents are citing the first sentence of the Anmore South Community Engagement Summary Report without the full context, and as a result, they are deliberately misrepresenting what was shared by residents by selectively ignoring the next couple sentences in the same paragraph.  As the report makes clear – residents who participated in the community engagement were mixed in terms of support for Urban. Of those who made specific comments related to the designation:

  • One group wanted to stay Rural;
  • One group supported Urban; and
  • One group was open to Urban but wanted more information first – such as about the financial and servicing impacts.

While it’s not in the summary report, a resident asked a follow up question on social media about the percentages in each group. It’s important to note that this was not a poll; however, in the community survey, 75 respondents shared comments indicating a preference related to designation as follows:

  • 37% shared comments indicating support for remaining Rural (this number includes those who said they do not want the area developed at all)
  • 42% shared comments indicating support for Urban
  • 21% shared comments indicating they want more information before specifying a preference.

That said, the majority of participants wanted Council to slow down and do more community engagement before making a decision as, at the time of the community engagement in April, Council was considering completing its OCP amendment by the end of June and submitting the application for an Urban designation in July. Respondents from all three groups felt this was too fast, wanted more studies done and additional community engagement. In response, Council did not move forward with an amendment and is completing the financial and servicing studies.