Ucluelet is looking into whether a narrow roadway linking the town to Hyphocus Island could be widened to allow the island to be developed and ease the current housing crisis without worsening traffic safety.
The island is accessible by a sketchy stretch of Helen Road that includes a causeway built by a logging company around 1964 to allow trucks to access Hyphocus, which now serves as the only drivable link between the island and Ucluelet.
The town’s municipal council is reviewing two separate and wildly different proposed housing developments on Hyphocus with both drawing an abundance of letters of opposition from area residents concerned about the traffic implications of each.
The developers hoping to build a new neighbourhood in the area recently whittled their project down from 326 units to 73 after facing backlash about their original plan. Their proposal includes a promise to try to add a sidewalk, though they’ve acknowledged that would be tricky due to the narrowness of the roadway.
The other development, which council reviewed during their Sept 3 regular meeting, would allow six housing units at 1061 Helen Road.
That project had come up previously on June 25, where council had voted against allowing it to move forward, but the applicant asked council to reconsider and mayor Marilyn McEwen used section 131 of the Community Charter to put the proposal back on the table.
McEwen said she had resurrected the proposal because she believed there had been confusion about what the site currently allows without the zoning.
She explained the site’s zoning allows for a single family dwelling with a secondary suite, an accessory residential dwelling unit and three bed and breakfast suites and that the new proposal would change that to six long-term residential housing units.
That clarification did little to quiet the opposition to the project however as council received seven letters objecting to the proposal pm Sept. 3.
“We were very pleased that you listened to our concerns, as well as the concerns of many others, in June of 2024, and denied the rezoning. We are disappointed that you are now reconsidering,” wrote Shirley and Keith Martin.
“It’s alarming to see this proposal, which was previously turned down, making a return,” wrote Bridget Kelly.
Several residents also spoke against the plan in person during a public hearing held immediately prior to council’s Sept. 3 discussion
“I just think that making this change to a higher density zoning will negatively impact our neighbourhood for the enjoyment of the existing residents. Part of the reason is because of how narrow the road is. It’s a pinpoint in a few places,” said Tracy Eeftink, who lives on Helen Road. “There are other areas in Ucluelet where higher density and low income housing would be more suitable…The District of Ucluelet staff should be encouraged to work with these developers to steer them to areas more suitable for their investments.”
She added that the applicants had purchased the single-family lot and she believes changing its zoning “will send a message to investors that Ucluelet is a place that they can manipulate for their own interests.”
“Please vote against this rezoning application,” she concluded.
Patricia Sieber also lives on Helen Road and spoke against the plan
“I’m sorry to be speaking to you again. I thought we’d settled it,” Sieber quipped.
“The majority of the requests for rezoning that have come before council in the past year have been tied to the promise of affordable housing to solve our housing crisis. It’s clear we have a housing crisis, but it’s also clear to those investors who see this problem that that’s the best way for them to sell what they want to do,” she said. “You don’t have to look very far to find out that in resort communities the provision of more houses does not automatically lead to affordable houses.”
She agreed with Eeftink that the location was not right for the proposal.
“The community is being asked to ignore the cost and inconvenience to the current residents on the promise of affordable housing. Why us? When there are so many sites around town that would support increased density and would be far less costly in upgrading the roads and providing safe access. Maybe because the land was the least expensive that the investor could find,” she said. “Is it our obligation to make sure that this investor gets a good return on his investment? I ask you once again, who gains if this rezoning is granted and who loses?”
Lisbeth Edwards said she has lived on Helen Road since 1980.
“I’ve seen the traffic grow and grow and grow,” she said. “There’s a lovely little hill just past my place and it seems to be a Nascar drive many times. That’s what I go through. That’s what I see.”
She suggested the “worst culprits for speeding along Helen Road” are people picking up kids from the local schools.
“It’s a nightmare along there,” she said, adding she is opposed to the new development.
“It’s just going to create more traffic.”
Paul Zhan, the designer behind the proposal, spoke at the hearing and suggested the project was in line with the six units currently allowed on the site, noting the new development would restrict all six to long-term residential.
“Actually we’re helping to change the rental to long term living units…This helps to solve the shortage of housing problem,” Zhan said, adding that he doubted the proposal would impact traffic significantly. “Traffic is still very slow here, compared to Vancouver of course.”
Matt Harbridge called into the hearing to question the use of words like ‘affordable’ in development applications that don’t include partnerships with BC Housing.
“There’s no dollar value set on these homes. There’s no such thing as affordable attached to it. There’s no attainable attached to it. These are fair market value homes at the developer’s discretion,” he said. “Every developer uses those words, but what’s the proof?”
Nancy Lobaugh said she had been following the application and agreed with mayor McEwen that the lot’s potential density would not necessarily change as the six housing units being asked for matches the home, suite, secondary property and three bed and breakfast units currently allowed.
“If it’s changed to multi-family residential, there are restrictions in place that do not allow short term rentals and this, relative to three b and b’s, would reduce the traffic down Helen,” she said.
“It is going to be unique in the area and it’s going to have to be something for council to decide if it’s too unique, but it’s kind of like the devil you know and the devil you don’t…Somebody could come and really build it out.”
Todd Evalina also suggested support for the project
“I think we’ve reached a crossroads in this community where housing has become a topic of maybe a political football where we want it to be developed in other neighbourhoods, but not our own,” he said.
“I hear the points where there’s a concern about investor developers who are not from here versus developers who are from here and where money stays in the community and where it doesn’t. There’s a balance where we do need to act on the housing crisis and if we continue to say, ‘No’ and ‘Not in my backyard’ we end up in a stalemate where there are no new homes created for community members.”
After hearing and reviewing residents’ concerns, council decided to hold off on approving or rejecting the application until work can be done to assess whether the road leading to Hyphocus could be widened.
Coun. Jennifer Hoar said she appreciated the clarification that the current zoning allows for six units, including three short term rentals, whereas the new plan would be six long-term housing units.
“I know it’s a narrow road,” Hoar said. “I worry about increased traffic, but six long term residences is not a vast increase in traffic.”
McEwen agreed.
“They’re giving up the short term rentals and providing six homes for people,” she said.
Coun. Shawn Anderson doubted the owner of the property would max out the short-term rental zoning and suggested the public’s opposition should be considered, especially around traffic safety.
“There’s no way to put a sidewalk. One vehicle has to stop to let another vehicle go by. It’s arguably the narrowest road in town with a cliff of granite on one side and a drop on the other…There’s just nowhere for children to go or people walking to go,” he said.
“I am for density. I’m for housing 100 per cent. I’m just thinking that putting something on the edge of town on a tiny island with one way in and one way out on the narrowest road in town is a recipe for disaster.”
He added that developers make their “meat and potatoes” by buying single-family lots and rezoning them to create more housing to sell.
“There’s already existing multi-family lots in town that could have been used…Instead, they’re choosing a place that was single family and upzoning it. Again, I’m not against density or upzoning single family (lots). I think on Peninsula (Road) it totally makes sense. There’s a bunch of places in town close to the Village Square where you could walk to get groceries that make sense (instead of) putting it in a place that is just downright dangerous to walk,” he said.
“When we talk about doing density, I’m slightly worried that it’s like going grocery shopping when you’re really hungry. We’re so hungry for something right now, even though we’ve got these other things in the cue, that we’re willing to jump on something right away because there’s density; there’s housing, we think this is going to satisfy that and it will to some degree, but I think it’s at the cost of safety.”
Coun. Ian Kennington said he liked the idea of adding more density to single-family lots, but that he had gone down to measure the road and it is too narrow for two cars in some areas.
“The challenge here is that the road is insufficient to support any expansion of any density period on that Island,” he said. “On the flipside, I love the project. I think it’s a great idea. I think it does fit the property. There’s so much that’s good about it but, at the end of the day, it may be just too soon for that piece of property.”
He asked if district staff could look into the feasibility of widening the road.
District CAO Duane Lawrence responded that staff could come back to council with a report, but that the cost estimate would likely be high.
Kennington said the road width was the only concern raised by residents that he agreed with.
“Any of the concerns about density and the character of the neighbourhood and all that, none of that holds water for me as far as where we need to go as a community and the housing we need to build,” he said. “We need the density, but we need to do it right.”
Coun. Mark Maftei suggested the road concerns are “a red herring” and that area residents would likely object regardless of the road width.
“As someone who is vocally, vehemently, against short term rentals, the fact that short term rental would be taken off the table as a permitted use is something that attracts me,” he said, adding the road concerns are “overblown.”
“The roads in this community and most communities are there for vehicles and if we want any increase in development and in the number of residences and residents, we’re going to see an increase in the number of vehicles.”
He also noted several letters had raised concerns around the developer not being local and raised objection to those complaints.
“To say it’s NIMBY-ism is stating the obvious, but I’m a little bit upset at what I’ve perceived to be almost, to call it what it is, a subtext of racism. I’ve heard a lot about who the developers are, where they’re from. To my mind, that doesn’t make sense,” Maftei said. “That holds no water at all and I was really disappointed to hear a lot of that.”
Kennington suggested the district take a look at the road to see if it can be widened and council unanimously agreed to have staff present a report at a future meeting.
“Safety is always a tough one. If we go and approve this and somebody’s kid gets run over, I don’t want to be that person that said it was OK to have a 16’ wide road,” he said.