Editor’s Note:
This is the third letter submitted to The Revelstoke Current by Victoria Long discussing the proposed Macklenzie Meadows housing development in Arrow Heights. If you click here you can read her first letter. And if you click here you’ll be taken to her second letter.
To the Editor:
Like all City Council members, we residents have only a couple of weeks to prepare for the Public Hearing on the proposed development, which proponents expect to add over 2,300 to the Arrow Heights population over the next decade. But wading through the seven reports offered to support the rezoning application as requested by Council, turns out to be a labour worthy of Hercules.
For example, why do the Preliminary Traffic Study and the Preliminary lnfrastructure & Servicing Study Mackenzie Village Revision 1 — October 2015 use different numbers for the population growth expected from the proposed Mackenzie Village Development?
On the City website, the water usage report is bisected by a biologist’s report, but if you piece the original report together, you see the estimated averaged population increase from the new development is 46 people added per year. However, the traffic study uses 62 vehicles added per year from the proposed development. I don’t see anything yet that resolves that apparent contradiction.
Another head scratcher for me compares the two studies on how population at build-out (currently estimated at 10 years) is forecast. This gem is from the Water Demand forecast:
“The timeline to reach buildout for Mackenzie Village is anticipated to be 10 years with a total population of approximately 2,300. Simplified, this works out to approximately 230 people per year added to the system. However, the population equivalent (PE) for Mackenzie Village is only 0.20 based on per capita water use (355 Lpcd I 1,790 Lpcd). Thus, 230 people is reduced to 46 people per year, and a total population of 460 at buildout.”
While I’m sure this makes sense to someone — it’d be nice if someone explained it to the public before the Public Hearing because not many of us will find this conversion factor’s justification a simple task.
I think I’m giving up now — please someone else take on this Herculean Labour and discover what the units are and, thus give some meaning to the conclusion of the Sanitary Flow after all phases completed being 14.28 ha.
If that total is in hectares, does it simply measure the area covered by the newly built environment?
I guess the reason I’m writing this third Letter to the Editor is to make the point that a single Public Hearing where the public will have only an hour to ask questions first is not enough for anyone, even our illustrious elected representatives to make an informed decision on the rezoning request. How about adding an info session ahead of the Public Hearing where someone (perhaps Dean Strachan?) could summarize the Reports Council requested from the proponents and answer questions about the assumptions and methodology used?
I’m still reeling from learning that the summer population in the new development is expected to be only half that of the winter population and that one-third of the population are forecast to be ‘recreational users’ — does this mean it’s offering vacation rentals for about 800 visitors annually? How many vacation rentals are currently available in the community as a whole? What will be the impact of these new Vacation Rentals on the investments made by Revelstokians to make the current supply if this new development goes ahead?
Yours truly confused,
Victoria Long
Revelstoke, BC
