Letter to the Editor:

Re:  Proposed Amendment to Cranbrook Bylaw 4201, 2025:  Lot 4, D.L. 2870, Kootenay District Plan NEP86333 and e-KNOW article “Application to double project density before council.”

Sixty-five written submissions voicing opposition to the amendment were submitted to city council prior to the cut-off time for written submissions, being 1 p.m., May 12.  In addition, a letter signed by/on behalf of 58 owners in Boulder Creek Strata was delivered to the city on the morning of the May 26 council meeting.  This letter summarizes the main points of objection.

Mr. Cobb’s article mentions that Mr. Britton, City Staff, reported to council that Phase 1 of the proposed development, which has been approved, and is not the subject of objection, is to be two four-storey “multi-family residential buildings, offering a community lifestyle at the Wildstone Golf Course.” The requested amendment seeks to permit phase 2, being an additional two four-storey buildings, thus doubling the number of units permitted on that site.

What is not mentioned is that the proposed residences are to be rentals. The Principal of Crowne Pacific, in an earlier meeting with Wildstone residents, stated that the rentals will be “high end, attractive to professionals,” with rental rates in the range of $3,000 per month.  The city’s recent Housing Survey, which is available on the city’s web site, states “There is a greater estimated need for low-income 1 person households specifically, than the total for any other entire income quintile.”

The report states that the largest numbers of people requiring such housing have annual earnings that only enable them to pay $999 per month.  Therefore, allowing Crowne Pacific to double the permitted number of rental units on Lot 4 will not meet the need for reasonably priced housing units in Cranbrook.

Wildstone Drive, legally known as Lot 12, into the Wildstone Golf Course, is not a public road.  It is owned by each residential owner in the Wildstone area, the golf course, and some commercial entities, including Crowne Pacific. As such, although Wildstone residents pay property taxes as anyone else in Cranbrook, the city does not spend any money for maintenance and repairs, upgrades, winter ploughing, municipal bus service, garbage and recycling pickup, street lighting, or dust control within Wildstone.

If the city permits the amendment, it is Wildstone residents who will bear the additional costs of road maintenance and repair. Is it fair to foist that financial burden onto Wildstone residents? Do Mayor Price and other councillors who live on publicly owned streets believe that it is fair to expect Wildstone residents to face increased costs by allowing the doubling of housing units, resulting in the doubling of permitted drivers on Lot 4?

When asked if the city had required Crowne Pacific to commit to paying for additional paving and road upgrading as a condition of approving the present number of units on Lot 4, the Principal of Crowne Pacific stated, “No…the city said that it couldn’t impose any requirements relating to Wildstone Drive because it is privately owned.”  It was the city, not the present owners who authorized/designated Wildstone Drive to be privately owned in the first place.

Wildstone residents say that this is not a “NIMBY” objection.  It is a “Not At Our Expense” objection.

Whose interests will be served by allowing the amendment?  It is only the interests of a non-local development company that will be served.  Those in need of low cost reasonably priced rental units won’t be served.  Wildstone residents won’t be served.

In 2021, as a result of opposition from many Wildstone residents, an amendment to Bylaw No. 4207, with respect to Lot 5, then owned by Crowne Pacific was denied by council.  The amendment sought was to increase the number of “allowed units” from 102 to 237 units.  Lot 5 was sold, and Crowne Pacific then purchased Lot 4.  The present application for Lot 4 is substantially identical to the prior amendment application.

Neither staff nor the Mayor or councillors who voted in favour of Second Reading have stated what has changed since 2021.  Surely such explanation is required.

Wildstone residents and those who golf at Wildstone Golf Course are already facing increased safety concerns as a result of the only ingress/exit point being at Industrial Road McPhee/Industrial Road “G” and Wildstone Drive.

There is no traffic light. Entering onto MacPhee Road is dangerous, as traffic going up and down the hill does not slow down, and visibility is poor. Increased traffic into Wildstone will further compromise and endanger those who use the road daily.

Wildstone Drive was never intended to be the main access road into the Golf Course.  Access to the Golf Course and further commercial must be from areas to the north, which was initially contemplated.

Don Kawano

Boulder Creek resident,

Cranbrook

Article Share