There is strong support for increased diversity and density of housing in the village core.
What types of housing are needed on Gabriola?
What types of housing would be most appropriate for the Village Core?
· Residential above commercial should be encouraged.
· Interest in live – work models.
· Need for both rental and ownership options; mix demographics and price points.
· Need for “attainably – priced” rental and entry level ownership housing for lower income families and service job providers, as well as seniors and special needs.
· Interest in denser single family residential models – such cohousing or cooperatives.
· Interest in semi-detached housing options such as townhouses.
· Interest in single building multi-family housing- i.e. apartments /condos.
· Openness to increased height, up to maximum 3 stories. Height and massing should be broken up by courtyards, landscaping, changes in massing and setbacks.
· Consider how to keep affordable housing affordable: i.e.’ limited equity models.
· Need for hospice / extended care / assisted living facilities… but mixed into other housing types, not isolated.
· Interest in defined cooperatives – collectives that mix denser housing and a common interest, such as agriculture or artist cooperative housing.
Where would you like to see changes to the status quo housing pattern, if anywhere?
Where would you define a Village Core boundary for allowing increased density, if anywhere?
· Re-zone and redevelop for denser housing within the village core area. Parcels suggested include Lochinvar triangle (most frequently suggested), Folklife Village Phase 2 the empty commercial parcel behind Folklife Village, Emcon, and a portion of the Commons.
· The village core boundary needs to be clarified. The area suggested roughly includes: ferry – RCMP – clinic – Tin Can alley.
· Suggestion that density does not necessarily need to be in the village core if it is on a transit route
How should increased housing in the Village core be achieved?
How should housing be developed?
How can the existing or potential barriers to any desired future housing patterns be overcome?
· Change zoning to allow mixed use; secondary suites, cottages on both SRR and LRR in the core; and multi-family housing.
· Existing density transfer model does not work – would issuing a charitable receipt help?
· Allow a one-time creation of new densities for the village core.
· Clarify the definition of “rural character” - it is vague and interpretations are perhaps not serving our needs.
· Many ideas suggested for how village housing can be developed: community owned land trust, on purchased or donated land; cooperatively owned, with shares; privately owned; housing society or other non-profit to take lead; community raises funds and RDN purchases land, and it is developed through a public / private partnership. Suggestion for an Islands Trust driven task force to study the “how”.
· Implement ways to overcome water and septic constraints. Let density be defined by ecological footprint.
· More imaginative, positive, and expansive approach to zoning, including illustrations.
· Recruit a board for the established non-profit/charitable housing society to help develop the housing.