Covenants and Governance
There are a series of covenants proposed that will limit certain uses on the property while ensuring continued public access to the lands. The covenants have been grouped into three categories:
1. Those covenants that are normally dealt with by RDEK Planning Staff at subdivision of a property and include the following:
• Limit the total number of residential units constructed on the Lands to not more than 75 single
• Restrict permitted uses within the PG-2 zoned lands to park and conservation uses.
• Prohibit two-family dwellings within the RR-1 zoned lands.
• Within those parts of the Lands zoned PG-2, and those parts of the Lands zoned RR-1 over which
a statutory right of way will be registered for public access.
• Wildfire covenants
2. Those covenants that require long-term administration and oversight will be registered in favour of the not-for-profit Society that will oversee the Galloway Lands Recreation Fund or the Homeowner Association. The RDEK will continue to be named on these covenants as a backstop to prevent discharge by the covenant holder but will not provide administration or enforcement of the covenant terms unless the RDEK chooses to do so.
• Restrict the type of horticultural uses permitted within the RR-1 zoned lands.
• No build covenant within the Lizard Creek corridor.
• No build covenant within the remainder of the PG-2 zoned lands.
• Provide a “no-build” covenant over that part of each building lot that is outside of the Building
3. Covenants held by other government agencies (ie. Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure):
• Provide an SRW to allow for future construction of a road connecting the Cedars development to
Fernie Alpine Resort. The SRW provided shall follow an alignment that permits construction of a
future connector road at the discretion of MOTI.
• Complete a Transportation Impact Assessment to the satisfaction of the Ministry.
Other Questions and Answers
We take your questions seriously and have addressed them prior to moving forward with our project submission.
Our intentions are to serve the community and the environment to the highest standard with transparency and accountability.
See our answers to your other questions here:
1. How will the development contribute to affordable housing in Fernie?
Affordability is an issue in Fernie as it is in many resort communities. However, we do not believe that this property is suitable for affordable housing due to its location away from downtown and City services. The proposed zoning permits secondary suites in the homes; we believe that many of the homes will include secondary suites that could provide housing for ski hill staff and other area residents. Additionally, the property taxes generated by this development will contribute to the construction of affordable housing projects within the Regional District of East Kootenay.
2. My question is concerning affordable housing, which is in a serious crisis point in the Fernie area. Will there be any effort by the developer to address or mitigate the affordable housing issue? It seems to me this development is only going to exacerbate the problem. As a society, I think we need to ask ourselves if we want to live in a community where regular working folk cannot afford anywhere to live. I would ask the developer to put themselves in the shoes of someone who is making minimum wage, or a single mom with kids, in Fernie – it’s impossible. The developer must realize that developments like this are adding to the problem. Does the developer care?
Thank you for this comment. we are very much aware of this complex issue and feel that the real solution for affordable workforce housing is housing cooperatives whereby an employer contracts with a developer to build housing for the workers of the employer. The employer may then provide subsidies for their own workers within the coop. This is a model that has worked very well in other resort communities and would work equally well in Fernie.
3. It’s a completely appropriate location for affordable housing – we all know ski hill employees need somewhere to live and can’t find anywhere to live. This location would be ideal to house ski hill employees. A typical issue is in fact that ski hill employees struggle getting to/from the ski hill and this problem would be significantly reduced with this location.
Thanks for your comment. See the answer under question 2.
4. Has there been any understanding of how the public is responding to this proposal?
At the January open house there were in excess of two hundred people many of whom submitted questions. We have also received dozens of phone calls with further questions and for general discussion of the proposal. We have received both positive and negative feedback and are encouraged by the response and the level of discourse.
5. Our experience in Calgary is that once the zoning approval is complete, objections to land use specifics do not have much weight. Why would this be different for RDEK?
Zoning of land is the part of the process within which there is a public hearing. Once zoning is complete and as long as the subdivision meets the regulations set out in the zoning bylaw there is not a public input portion to the remaining process. Situations where the subdivision is not consistent with the zoning bylaw can be appealed by the public.
6. What timeframe do you anticipate the first shovel will be in the ground for building?
Based on our current schedule for land use approvals, we would envision site works for Phase 1 of the community commencing in 2023.
7. How much will these lots cost?
The prices of the lots have not yet been determined since not all costs are known.