Community Articles
General News · 8th January 2025
Carrie Saxifrage
The SRD has proposed a by-law revision that would upzone all residential zones on Cortes Island.
Residential-1 (R-1) has the smallest minimum lot size and is generally located near services and is the densest zone. Rural Residential (RR-1) is intended to serve as a buffer between Residential and Rural zones. (It is barely used and won’t be mentioned again.) Rural-1 (RU-1) has the largest minimum lot size and is intended to preserve the rural character of Cortes Island.
By-law revision comes once every ten to twenty years. Current residents have the power to shape future development so it is an important opportunity that deserves community engagement. I hope this article will deepen the discussion and encourage people to make known their thoughts.
So far, to me it seems me we have the choice to: 1) ask for an upzone that creates denser villages near existing services (Gorge Harbour, Squirrel Cove, Mansons Landing) and leaves the RU-1 zone less dense/more wild; or 2) increase potential dwellings in RU-1 and thereby intensify human impacts across more land.
The upzone proposal in front of us takes this second option.
Three reasons support village development are: 1) affordability; 2) climate resilience; and 3) wildlife support.
Affordability
For decades, people have been able to move here, buy a relatively inexpensive parcel and build their own home. This opportunity is greatly diminished, given the increase in land prices relative to the rise in inflation and the increase in island wages. Smaller parcels with greater density may make purchase and rental more affordable.
Climate Resilience
The future is constrained by the changing climate, either because we address it effectively and ICE (internal combustion) vehicles are no longer the default transportation or because we don’t, and systems built for a past climate begin to fail. Either way, village life creates convenient and low carbon access to services.
Wildlife support
The RU-1 zone has preserved land for non-human residents. Dwellings and gardens usually don’t fill the minimum lot size of two hectares (about five acres) and many RU-1 parcels are larger. That extra land is used by wildlife. That was intentional by the community members who worked on the 2002 By Laws.
Are We Ready For A Shift?
The village approach to development seems most practical for affordability, climate resilience and wildlife support. So far on Cortes Island, this type of development is more the exception than the rule. People aspire to parcel large enough to allow at least the idea of self-sufficiency, even though land is now very expensive and maybe beyond reach. The question is whether people want to make the cultural shift to living closer together if it is more likely to result in greater housing security, less driving and protection of areas in which wildlife can thrive. In my view, this needs discussion.
An Upzone That Supports Development in R-1, the Village Zone
The current minimum lot size in R-1 is 1 ha (or ~2 acres if connected to community water and/or sewerage). The proposed upzone would affect only R-1 parcels of more than 3 hectares, an increase from 4 dwellings to 5. This does not seem likely to result in village type development. The Cortes Island Housing Society suggests halving the minimum lot size to .5 hectare.
Effective sewerage is essential to public health and ecosystem protection. The SRD’s FAQs state Island Health sewerage regulations require 1 ha and this explains the minimum lot size for R-1.
Island Health’s “one size fits all communities” approach might make sewerage unnecessarily expensive and block the community’s desire for greater density. Perhaps Island Health hasn’t considered how the current approach forces residents into illegal options. If it had greater flexibility and allowed lower cost sewerage systems, this could be better for public and ecosystem health because people could actually comply and build new systems for less cost. Lower costs might increase opportunities for secure housing.
I don’t understand the SRD’s statement that Island Health requires R-1 zoning of a one ha minimum. More dwellings per lot would make it more cost effective to install approved public sewerage systems for several parcels, or an approved engineered system on a specific parcel, or install approved composting toilets (which also require greywater systems). In the long term, higher density seems essential to the village idea and the ½ hectacre minimum endorsed by CIHS seems, if anything, too small.
Based on the info I have now:
I support higher density in the R-1 zone than proposed, at least the ½ hectare minimum lot size endorsed by CIHS, or more.
I would like to see the SRD engage with Island Health on this 1 hectare minimum lot size to tailor a solution to the Cortes situation as its current regulations do not work here.
An Upzone That Supports Cortes Island’s Rural Character
The bylaw revision upzone increases density most in the RU-1 zone. This zone intended to preserve Cortes Island’s rural character. It also the zone in which an increased number of allowed dwellings has the greatest potential require more driving and to spread human impacts into wild lands. (In addition to the impact of clearing for homes, there are impacts by pets, such as the crash in bird populations due to bird predation by cats and dogs in closer proximity to wolf habitat.)
To keep Cortes Island’s character rural and wild, and to minimize driving, the RU-1 zone should have no increase in density. If owners want more dwellings in the rural zone, they should have to apply for a rezone. This process empowers the community to ask for amenities in exchange for the right to build more dwellings. These amenities can include affordable rental units and/or conservation covenants. A blanket upzone in RU-1 gives away community power to get these amenities to serve us in the long term.
Based on the current info, I think the RU-1 zone should not allow any increase in the number of dwellings.
Water
The CIHS has commissioned an aquifer study that will hopefully answer the impact of new dwellings on existing water users during summer droughts. We need to understand and abide by this non-negotiable natural limitation.
To make an informed decision, we need to wait for the results of the CIHS aquifer study before finalizing any upzone proposal.
Do Upzones Result in Affordable Housing?
Research supports the idea that upzones are helpful in urban areas when other affordability measures are also implemented. I found no research stating that an upzone increases affordability in a rural area that has an international vacation property market in addition to an underserved market for affordable year-round housing.
On Cortes, the fear is that this upzoning won’t solve the residents’ affordability problem. But it could get us a lot more seasonally absent homeowners to hollow out the year-round community. It could also increase summer impacts on roads, water, wild lands, ferry service, fire danger and emergency services.
Given the uncertainty, it makes sense to upzone incrementally so we can see how our particular market responds over the next decade. We can’t tell how incremental the proposed revisions are in the absence of the number of dwellings that would be enabled by this proposed upzone. We need the SRD planning staff to provide this information using at least two scenarios, the one it proposed and the one I suggest (greater upzone of R-1 and no upzone of RU-1). Other communities will have other ideas of what is best for the island and these should also be explored.
We need these numbers from the SRD:
1) How many parcels exist in each zone and what size are they?
2) Using this figure, how many dwellings for each zone would be added by the 2024 proposed upzone?
Depending on this answer, we might choose to go more slowly, see who is able to buy in and how much affordable and secure rental housing results. Then we will still have room – and maybe better tools – to continue our support for secure year-round housing in the next bylaw revision. And we will retain the right that comes with rezone applications, to exchange community amenities (affordable housing solutions and permanent conservation) for increased density.
Watch for a Cortes Currents article with a deeper discussion of these and other points (tiny homes, building size and non-zoning measures that support affordability). It includes AI (Microsoft co-pilot) answers on the impact of upzones on affordability in rural areas.
Residential-1 (R-1) has the smallest minimum lot size and is generally located near services and is the densest zone. Rural Residential (RR-1) is intended to serve as a buffer between Residential and Rural zones. (It is barely used and won’t be mentioned again.) Rural-1 (RU-1) has the largest minimum lot size and is intended to preserve the rural character of Cortes Island.
By-law revision comes once every ten to twenty years. Current residents have the power to shape future development so it is an important opportunity that deserves community engagement. I hope this article will deepen the discussion and encourage people to make known their thoughts.
So far, to me it seems me we have the choice to: 1) ask for an upzone that creates denser villages near existing services (Gorge Harbour, Squirrel Cove, Mansons Landing) and leaves the RU-1 zone less dense/more wild; or 2) increase potential dwellings in RU-1 and thereby intensify human impacts across more land.
The upzone proposal in front of us takes this second option.
Three reasons support village development are: 1) affordability; 2) climate resilience; and 3) wildlife support.
Affordability
For decades, people have been able to move here, buy a relatively inexpensive parcel and build their own home. This opportunity is greatly diminished, given the increase in land prices relative to the rise in inflation and the increase in island wages. Smaller parcels with greater density may make purchase and rental more affordable.
Climate Resilience
The future is constrained by the changing climate, either because we address it effectively and ICE (internal combustion) vehicles are no longer the default transportation or because we don’t, and systems built for a past climate begin to fail. Either way, village life creates convenient and low carbon access to services.
Wildlife support
The RU-1 zone has preserved land for non-human residents. Dwellings and gardens usually don’t fill the minimum lot size of two hectares (about five acres) and many RU-1 parcels are larger. That extra land is used by wildlife. That was intentional by the community members who worked on the 2002 By Laws.
Are We Ready For A Shift?
The village approach to development seems most practical for affordability, climate resilience and wildlife support. So far on Cortes Island, this type of development is more the exception than the rule. People aspire to parcel large enough to allow at least the idea of self-sufficiency, even though land is now very expensive and maybe beyond reach. The question is whether people want to make the cultural shift to living closer together if it is more likely to result in greater housing security, less driving and protection of areas in which wildlife can thrive. In my view, this needs discussion.
An Upzone That Supports Development in R-1, the Village Zone
The current minimum lot size in R-1 is 1 ha (or ~2 acres if connected to community water and/or sewerage). The proposed upzone would affect only R-1 parcels of more than 3 hectares, an increase from 4 dwellings to 5. This does not seem likely to result in village type development. The Cortes Island Housing Society suggests halving the minimum lot size to .5 hectare.
Effective sewerage is essential to public health and ecosystem protection. The SRD’s FAQs state Island Health sewerage regulations require 1 ha and this explains the minimum lot size for R-1.
Island Health’s “one size fits all communities” approach might make sewerage unnecessarily expensive and block the community’s desire for greater density. Perhaps Island Health hasn’t considered how the current approach forces residents into illegal options. If it had greater flexibility and allowed lower cost sewerage systems, this could be better for public and ecosystem health because people could actually comply and build new systems for less cost. Lower costs might increase opportunities for secure housing.
I don’t understand the SRD’s statement that Island Health requires R-1 zoning of a one ha minimum. More dwellings per lot would make it more cost effective to install approved public sewerage systems for several parcels, or an approved engineered system on a specific parcel, or install approved composting toilets (which also require greywater systems). In the long term, higher density seems essential to the village idea and the ½ hectacre minimum endorsed by CIHS seems, if anything, too small.
Based on the info I have now:
I support higher density in the R-1 zone than proposed, at least the ½ hectare minimum lot size endorsed by CIHS, or more.
I would like to see the SRD engage with Island Health on this 1 hectare minimum lot size to tailor a solution to the Cortes situation as its current regulations do not work here.
An Upzone That Supports Cortes Island’s Rural Character
The bylaw revision upzone increases density most in the RU-1 zone. This zone intended to preserve Cortes Island’s rural character. It also the zone in which an increased number of allowed dwellings has the greatest potential require more driving and to spread human impacts into wild lands. (In addition to the impact of clearing for homes, there are impacts by pets, such as the crash in bird populations due to bird predation by cats and dogs in closer proximity to wolf habitat.)
To keep Cortes Island’s character rural and wild, and to minimize driving, the RU-1 zone should have no increase in density. If owners want more dwellings in the rural zone, they should have to apply for a rezone. This process empowers the community to ask for amenities in exchange for the right to build more dwellings. These amenities can include affordable rental units and/or conservation covenants. A blanket upzone in RU-1 gives away community power to get these amenities to serve us in the long term.
Based on the current info, I think the RU-1 zone should not allow any increase in the number of dwellings.
Water
The CIHS has commissioned an aquifer study that will hopefully answer the impact of new dwellings on existing water users during summer droughts. We need to understand and abide by this non-negotiable natural limitation.
To make an informed decision, we need to wait for the results of the CIHS aquifer study before finalizing any upzone proposal.
Do Upzones Result in Affordable Housing?
Research supports the idea that upzones are helpful in urban areas when other affordability measures are also implemented. I found no research stating that an upzone increases affordability in a rural area that has an international vacation property market in addition to an underserved market for affordable year-round housing.
On Cortes, the fear is that this upzoning won’t solve the residents’ affordability problem. But it could get us a lot more seasonally absent homeowners to hollow out the year-round community. It could also increase summer impacts on roads, water, wild lands, ferry service, fire danger and emergency services.
Given the uncertainty, it makes sense to upzone incrementally so we can see how our particular market responds over the next decade. We can’t tell how incremental the proposed revisions are in the absence of the number of dwellings that would be enabled by this proposed upzone. We need the SRD planning staff to provide this information using at least two scenarios, the one it proposed and the one I suggest (greater upzone of R-1 and no upzone of RU-1). Other communities will have other ideas of what is best for the island and these should also be explored.
We need these numbers from the SRD:
1) How many parcels exist in each zone and what size are they?
2) Using this figure, how many dwellings for each zone would be added by the 2024 proposed upzone?
Depending on this answer, we might choose to go more slowly, see who is able to buy in and how much affordable and secure rental housing results. Then we will still have room – and maybe better tools – to continue our support for secure year-round housing in the next bylaw revision. And we will retain the right that comes with rezone applications, to exchange community amenities (affordable housing solutions and permanent conservation) for increased density.
Watch for a Cortes Currents article with a deeper discussion of these and other points (tiny homes, building size and non-zoning measures that support affordability). It includes AI (Microsoft co-pilot) answers on the impact of upzones on affordability in rural areas.