By Don White.

Nanaimo City Council’s rejection of the proposed development for 388 Machleary Street is both a victory and a challenge. It represents a victory for defenders of existing community plans and a crucial, even vital, challenge for our successfully moving forward together into the future.

The property in question was the site of the old Nanaimo Hospital and more recently of Malaspina Gardens, a seniors’ care facility. The proposed development by Vancouver’s Molnar Group was for a 175 unit, multi-family, mix of townhouses and four and five story buildings with accommodation ranging from micro units to three bedrooms.

The obstacle to proceeding was the project’s incompatibility with current zoning. Nanaimo’s Official Community Plan (OCP) designates the surrounding area as Neighbourhood allowing a density of 10 – 50 units per hectare in two to four story buildings. The Old City Neighbourhood Plan (OCNP) designates property usage in the area to be for Single Family/Duplex. The development proposed, however, has a density of 151 units per hectare.

The Molnar Group requested a change in zoning from Neighbourhood to Corridor, which allows for medium-density residential use in two to six story buildings along major arterial roads that service the surrounding area. City Hall staff endorsed the rezoning, and referred the development proposal to City Council and a public hearing.

At the public hearing held in the Shaw Auditorium on September 19, 2019, submissions by area residents overwhelmingly opposed the development. Three factors were claimed especially problematic: increased traffic from the increased density; incompatibility with the character and nature of neighbourhood; and the inappropriate use of spot rezoning of the OCP/OCNP. At 11:00 pm, several members of the public were still waiting to speak, and the meeting was adjourned to October 9. The second meeting was a shorter version of the first.

Community objections to the development raised important questions for all of us. When do communities get to create and preserve the neighbourhoods they want? When are neighbourhoods protected from the City imposing zoning loopholes to allow non-conforming development and usage? Who determines the character of neighbourhoods?

To Council’s credit, those questions formed the core of the discussion that followed submissions by the public. Councillors Bonner, Hemmens, and Maartman did not see increasing density or traffic to be project-stoppers, but they were concerned about spot zoning. Councillors Thorpe and Brown liked the project look and felt its impact on the neighbourhood’ wouldn’t necessarily be negative, but they also worried about the fallout from making an end run around the OCP.

An official community plan is a social contract with community, asserted Hemmens. Councils must not break that contract. Spot rezoning amounts to a breech of trust. Geselbracht and Bonner stated it was essential that communities be brought along through consultation on any changes to the OCP. The motion to rezone 388 Machleary to Corridor was defeated 6 – 3 with Krog, Armstrong, and Turley voting for rezoning.

It is difficult to fault the principle on which Council came to its decision. Neighbourhood and community plans do constitute trust agreements with neighbourhoods and city residents. By denying the requested change in zoning, Council gave their answer to the question of when a community gets the neighbourhood it wants. When community members work with city hall to create official community plans, those plans can be taken as being sacrosanct.

Council’s decision represents a victory for local communities. And we should remember to keep that victory in mind. Because the defeat of The Molnar Group’s request for rezoning has other, perhaps more important, implications. It also informs both our short and long term futures.

Had the OCP and OCNP allowed for Corridors, this victory would not have happened. But that can change. The OCP is scheduled for updating in the spring of 2020. In the short term, residents of Nanaimo need to come forward and give input to Council and staff during the updating to continue protecting their neighbourhoods from unwanted zoning changes.

Even more important is the long term. During the discussion, Councillor Bonner noted that with our City’s recognition of the global climate emergency, we should really be discussing reducing, not increasing neighbourhood densities, i.e. their populations. He may have meant the comment to be ironic as he then went on to endorse the need for increasing densities within the city. But intentionally or not, his quip makes a valid point. We live in a different world today than did previous city planners.

As Bonner’s comment suggests, updating our OCP must also factor in the anticipated climate change, global overpopulation, and coming resource scarcities. It can no longer be simply about generating growth to increase our city’s tax base, or make us an economic powerhouse. Keeping the same old business models that got us here, won’t cut it. As Zeni Maartman observed, it’s incumbent on all of us to think and act outside the box. Factoring in our expected future is even more important that protecting our neighbourhoods against spot zoning.

In the long term, 388 Machleary Street is a helpful case study pointing to one arena for that action. The public debate over the proposed development highlight a number of important issues. The zoning’s rejection was a significant step – but just one step – towards our collective future. The next step comes in the spring of 2020 with the updating of our current OCP. As evidenced by the last two Public Meetings, our future – for both short and long term – depends very much on how that process goes, and on how much the public opts to be involved.