Lyonel Doherty
Times-Chronicle
Oliver Mayor Martin Johansen put the brakes on a resort owner who accused the planning department of misleading council last Monday.
During a zoning amendment application by Desert Gem RV Resort, owner Scott Nelson suggested that council was being misled by Director of Development Services Randy Houle and his staff.
The issue involves the resort wanting to subdivide the property just south of town to create separate lots for tourism holiday use. The company’s plan is to convert ownership of Desert Gem from a single owner to a strata model (multiple owners), with minimal site change to the property.
But Houle outlined a number of staff’s concerns, including the fact the proposed zoning amendment will individualize the lots for non-commercial use, which is inconsistent with the property’s commercial tourism designation (as prescribed by the Official Community Plan).
He noted the proposal is more residential in nature rather than commercial, which is not in line with the OCP’s objectives.
Houle also said the plan will increase municipal tax revenue to the Town by $3,700. In the end, he recommended that council deny first and second reading of the bylaw.
Brad Elenko, an agent for the applicant, said the company is not planning on changing the commercial tourism aspect of the property, but only wants to add a new strata component to the resort, with a maximum number of 48 lots.
He said the owners merely want to find an innovative way to continue operating the resort. He explained the proposal is designed for tourists to pre-pay for vacation accommodation by owning their own lots.
“The occupants will be tourists from out of town wanting to vacation and spend money in Oliver,” Elenko said, adding that the average length of stay will be 19 days based on last year’s average.
The agent said the Town’s planning staff only showed a minimal tax benefit and did not account for all the tax revenue. His final estimated tally is $18,000 to the Town, an increase of $12,000 from last year’s revenue of $5,800. Combined with other taxes (school, hospital, etc.) the development will result in approximately $35,000 in tax revenue, Elenko pointed out.
The agent also argued that the proposal is not residential in any way, noting the occupants will be tourists who will purchase the lots and rent them out when they are not using them.
“The proposed use is not a change in land use, but simply a change in tenure or ownership,” Elenko said.
Nelson said the benefit is not just the tax revenue but the fact the resort will encourage people to stay and spend money in Oliver instead of going to Osoyoos or Penticton.
“I’m trying to figure out a way to say this nicely, but we believe that council has been misled by the planning department.”
Johansen immediately responded by saying, “Scott, I’m not going to accept those kinds of comments at this meeting. Keep your comments away from being personal and stick to the facts, please.”
Scott said his comments weren’t personal but represented the facts which will be “dealt with at an appropriate time in the appropriate way.”
Councillor Larry Schwartzenberger said his main concern is changing the resort’s ownership from one to 48.
“That will probably make sure this property is never developed into anything else . . . the possibility of a hotel down the road would never fly (because of the 48 owners).”
Fellow Coun. Dave Mattes said he doesn’t think the proposal is healthy for the town as a whole, adding he is not prepared to tie the property up in this manner.
Mattes said the proposal will basically increase the property value for the owner, and it’s not council’s role to change zonings to increase property values.
Councillor Aimie Grice said she sees the economic benefit to the town as minimal.
“I can’t see how stratifying a campground would encourage more tourists,” she commented, adding her doubts that people will bother getting involved in such a rental pool.
Councillor Petra Veintimilla said she’s not sure that an RV resort is the best use for this commercial space.
Johansen said the issue for the Town is not about tax revenue but what is best for the community. He added that council needs to keep its options open for the future, and having multiple owners on this site won’t do that.
He also reiterated that the proposal does not meet the spirit and guidelines set out in the Official Community Plan.
Council was unanimous in rejecting first and second reading of the bylaw.
