Development Application No. PL2018-056

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin Email this link
The RDN is currently looking for your input on application PL2018-056.

Lots 1 and 2, Coburn Road, Electoral Area H

The public information stage for this project is underway. The deadline for public feedback will be set once the application submission is complete. Thank you for your participation.

The RDN has received a zoning amendment application for two parcels located on Coburn Road in Electoral Area H. The applicant proposes to rezone the subject property from Residential 4 (RS4) and Residential 2 (RS2) to Esary Road Residential Comprehensive Development Zone 55 (CD55) to permit the development of a Single Family Residential development. This application also includes a request to amend the Electoral Area H Official Community Plan by redesignating lot 2 from Commercial - Tourist to Residential - Medium Density.

This is in your community and we want to hear your thoughts on this proposal. A few ways you can learn more and share your thoughts are by:

  • Provide your input by participating in the questionnaire by clicking the Application Input tab below
  • Checking out our Document Library which includes the site plan and supporting studies
  • Check the status of the application and next steps see our Process
  • Visit the FAQ for more information
  • Be sure to Register to provide your input
  • Send us your questions and we will provide an answer for all to see in the Q & A tab
  • Project updates will be shared in the What's New tab as the project moves forward
  • Connect with our team by email - see our contact info in Who's Listening

To view the subject properties on RDN Map, click here.



Lots 1 and 2, Coburn Road, Electoral Area H

The public information stage for this project is underway. The deadline for public feedback will be set once the application submission is complete. Thank you for your participation.

The RDN has received a zoning amendment application for two parcels located on Coburn Road in Electoral Area H. The applicant proposes to rezone the subject property from Residential 4 (RS4) and Residential 2 (RS2) to Esary Road Residential Comprehensive Development Zone 55 (CD55) to permit the development of a Single Family Residential development. This application also includes a request to amend the Electoral Area H Official Community Plan by redesignating lot 2 from Commercial - Tourist to Residential - Medium Density.

This is in your community and we want to hear your thoughts on this proposal. A few ways you can learn more and share your thoughts are by:

  • Provide your input by participating in the questionnaire by clicking the Application Input tab below
  • Checking out our Document Library which includes the site plan and supporting studies
  • Check the status of the application and next steps see our Process
  • Visit the FAQ for more information
  • Be sure to Register to provide your input
  • Send us your questions and we will provide an answer for all to see in the Q & A tab
  • Project updates will be shared in the What's New tab as the project moves forward
  • Connect with our team by email - see our contact info in Who's Listening

To view the subject properties on RDN Map, click here.



If you have any questions about Zoning Amendment application PL2018-056, please type them here. A staff member will respond within two business days.

  • Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin Email this link

    If Zoning is changed to CD55 will the Applicant still need to obtain a Development Permit to proceed, or is this sole opportunity for the public, MOT and FLNRO to comment on the proposed plan?

    boykiwd asked 20 days ago

    If the zoning is approved, a Development Permit will be required in order to proceed. Please note, there is generally no opportunity for the community to comment on a Development Permit application unless there is a variance requested. Therefore, if you wish to comment, it is recommended that you do so as part of this rezoning/OCP amendment. 

  • Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin Email this link

    Attempt #4: What is the size of the two parcels to be developed, and what is the size of the lot to be dedicated as park. Thank you

    Gary Holisko asked 27 days ago

    Thank you for your question. Our apologies if it didn't get answered previously. Lot 1 is 2.25 hectares and Lot 2 is 2.56 ha for a total of 4.81 hectares.  At this time, the proposed park is 1,867 square metres. 

  • Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin Email this link

    Are you no longer accepting questions and anwering them? This is very concerning to the public and many residents are now getting concerned about the transparency of the process instead of looking at the actual proposal. It is not appropriate for the RDN to state on this page that a staff member will "respond within 2 business days" when I have spoke to many residents who have not had any response at all to their questions for many days. It is very disppointing that the RDN has decided to stifle public engagement when public hearings are still likely to be restricted. This approach is completely contrary to RDN's published "Public Engagement Strategy". Why have a strategy if it is ignored when inconvenient?

    Bowser Fisherman asked about 1 month ago

    While we do our best to respond in a timely manner, however, due to significant workload requirements, we cant always respond within two days. Our apologies, but we ask for your patience at this time. We encourage you to provide your feedback using the Application Input tab to ensure that your thoughts are captured as part of the public record. 

  • Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin Email this link

    in reading the application, the OCP, then q&a and doing some more reading on the rdn website, there are several prior reports and studies referenced in these documents that i cant find. can i view them somewhere or will they be posted? it is hard to be informed without being able to review these.

    bowserbuilder asked about 1 month ago

    We are aware of the desire to have access to the previous studies that were prepared and will work on gaining access to them for sharing purposes.

  • Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin Email this link

    I just read Enviro Bowser's question so went for a walk. It is pretty obvious to anyone that has looked that the waterfall and watercourse above and below the waterfall are not manmade. There is no ditch through the property and the stream collects water from many sources on the property. Although the biggest source of water comes from the culvert, thats because that was installed when Esary Road was built. If RDN's own independent reports call it a stream and fish bearing, how can the developer's claims that it is a manmade ditch be even considered? I read the Bowser Village Plan . Principles 1 and 2 must be followed. RDN and the developer must embrace these principles in the design instead of asking for a shrinkage of the setback rules. Will the RDN planners follow and enforce these core values that it created when it comes time to make a recommendation to the Board?

    Bowser Fisherman asked about 1 month ago

    Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts. We are aware of the concerns wit respect to the status of the watercourse and are working hard to provide clarification on this item. I encourage you to share your thought in the application input tab to ensure that it forms part of the public record.

  • Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin Email this link

    now that the planned village center is going to turn into another high priced unaffordable housing development, where will the new village center be moving in your long term plans for the region? where do the bowser businesses to support this expensive enclave go as the plans show they would go nowhere....

    bowserbuilder asked about 1 month ago

    Thank you for your input. I encourage you to share your thoughts in the application input tab to ensure that your input is part of the public record. . 

  • Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin Email this link

    The Area H OCP (Map 2) identifies Coburn Creek as a Stream as well as a Significant Environmental Feature. Was this 2002 Mather & Geisbrecht. study commissioned by RDN? Is that report available? The 2006 Hamilton report also notes the bottom of Coburn Creek as fish bearing. With 2 independent studies already confirming Coburn Creek as a stream one may question if a study commissioned by the developer suggesting otherwise can be viewed as truly independent. Will the RDN make all prior studies pubic to ensure independence and transparency, instead of referring the public only to the developer's own work product?

    LighthouseCountry asked about 1 month ago

    Thank you for your input and for bringing this to our attention. The RDN will continue to work with the applicant to address this item. Note, we are only able to share studies that are done by the applicant as part of this application. 

  • Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin Email this link

    I am sorry but perhaps my question was misunderstood..... Can you please answer if DEEP BAY WATERWORKS has been notified as their aquifer is directly affected as well by this development The Map on RDN website shows quite clearly that the proposed fields are within BOTH Bowser and Deep Bay authority aquifer recharge area.

    LighthouseCountry asked about 1 month ago

    In short no. However, when the application is complete, we will resend  new referrals to all referral agencies including the Waterworks District. At that time we will be in a position to share more detailed and up to date engineering reports for the Waterworks district to review and provide comment on. 

  • Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin Email this link

    Hello, I noticed in one of your responses to a below Q&A there were a few incorrect statements made by the RDN. You stated "The applicant is in the process of obtaining clarifying information regarding the drainage channel. The report that was submitted indicates that the portion of the drainage channel on this site is not passible to fish as there is a large water fall that would block fish passage". If the developer is still working with FLNRO to determine applicability of the WSA and RAPR, it shall not be referred to as a "drainage channel" but in fact a stream. The RDN's own map (No.2 Environmental Features and Protected Areas) show this watercourse on it as a stream and a significant environmental feature. Also, regarding the statement made about being impassible to fish - that was also incorrect. That is not how a stream is considered fish-bearing. If any part of a stream reach is considered fish-bearing (in this case the lower 45m below the waterfall), the whole stream is considered fish-bearing as per regulation - you can find information regarding the WSA here (https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/farming-natural-resources-and-industry/natural-resource-use/land-water-use/crown-land/working_around_water.pdf) and regarding RAPR here (https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/plants-animals-and-ecosystems/fish-fish-habitat/riparian-areas-regulations/rapr_assessment_methods_manual_for_web_11.pdf). Since this stream was previously found to be fish-bearing, if the developer wishes to have the site designated non-fish-bearing, they must prepare an extensive inventory to conclusively identify a watercourse as non-fish-bearing (as per Vancouver Islands Forest Practices Code Fish-stream Identification Guidebook).

    Enviro Bowser asked about 1 month ago

    Thank you for your detailed comments. We would like to better understand what you believe to be 'incorrect statements' so we can make corrections if necessary. Please contact us as we would be happy to learn more and discuss the project with you directly. Our contact information is included in the Who is Listening section of the page. 

  • Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin Email this link

    Has Deep Bay waterworks been notified that 2 septic fields for 40 units are proposed to be located within the groundwater recharge area for the Aquifer that supports their water supply?

    LighthouseCountry asked about 1 month ago

    The RDN has referred this application to the Bowser Waterworks District for comment.