Make a Decision!

The multiunit complex proposed for 532 Memorial Avenue came before Council again on March 25, 2026.

By way of background, this project was first presented to Council on January 8, 2025 to provide Council with an initial look at the proponent's proposal for the property. In response to Council's concerns at that meeting, the proponent revised the project by reducing the density and height and applied for a Development Variance Permit and a Development Permit at the June 18, 2025 Council meeting. At that time, Council referred the application back to the proponent to address the height of the project (not to exceed 3 storeys) and to conduct a traffic study. The application was also referred to the Advisory Planning Commission ("APC"), subject to the proponent addressing the height and traffic issues.

In September 2025, the proponent submitted revised plans to the APC. The APC generally accepted the revisions, commenting that the height was acceptable, however, articulations in roof height and massing would improve the visual impact of the building.

Following the APC review, the application went before Council on December 10, 2025 to initiate the notification requirements so that Council could consider the issuance of a Development Variance Permit at a future Council meeting. In addition to directing staff to commence the notification requirements, Council referred the application to the APC "in the interest of producing the best possible design and that [the APC] consideration include [:] a gateway perspective, height, length and massing of the Hoylake Road East building... the arbutus tree be considered for preservation and explore alternative access onto the site from midblock Memorial Avenue."

The APC reviewed the application on January 7, 2026. In its report, the APC stated that it agreed with the building height as presented, generally agreed with the length of the building, made some comment regarding overall design/massing, noted that the arbutus tree was not significant enough to modify the design, that access from midblock Memorial Avenue was not viable and recommended that Council approve the issuance of the Development Variance Permit and Development Permit.

The application next went to Council on February 11, 2026 for the issuance of a Development Variance Permit and a Development Permit. The variance requested by the proponent was for an increase in height over that permitted under the existing zoning. In the staff report to Council, staff recommended the issuance of both permits. The public and the proponent were permitted to speak on the application at the February Council meeting, however, comments were restricted to the requested height variance. The public and the proponent spoke at length on the issue and it appeared that a decision was going to be made by Council at the meeting. However, any expectations of a decision came to an end when Council voted unanimously to postpone the issuance of the permits to the March 4, 2026 Council meeting.

The application was not on the agenda for the March 4, 2026 meeting but did come up at the March 25, 2026 Council meeting. There was no change to the proposed project. The height variance was still the issue. The public and the proponent were again permitted to provide comments. Essentially, a repeat of the February 11, 2026 meeting. The staff recommendation was to issue both the Development Variance Permit and the Development Permit. In the discussion following the public's and the proponent's comments, Councillors Skipsey and Vandervalk were opposed to following the staff recommendation to grant the variance. To this end Councillor Skipsey introduced a motion that the issuance of the Development Variance Permit be refused. Councillors Young and Harrison appeared to be in favour of granting the application, thus, potentially setting up the potential of a tie breaking vote by Mayor Westbroek. Prior to the vote being taken, the Director of Planning noted that Council could consider the height variance separately from the issuance of the Development Permit and then consider further changes at the Development Permit issuance stage. This could have moved the application forward, however, Councillor Skipsey was not prepared to grant the height variance. Mayor Westbroek noted that Councillor Skipsey's motion on the floor (ie. to refuse the granting of the variance) was significantly different from the staff recommendation and asked the Director of Planning for a suggestion as to how the matter could be resolved. The Director's suggestion was that that the application could be deferred pending discussions with the proponent on potential solutions. Councillor Harrison stated that he was not generally in favour of deferring items. Mayor Westbroek picked up on this, essentially turning Councillor Harrison's comments into a motion to defer, which the Mayor seconded. The vote on the motion to defer the decision to a future council meeting passed with three Councillors in favour (Westbroek, Harrison and Young) and two opposed (Skipsey and Vandervalk). The end result was a deferral, yet again, of a decision on this project. Visions of Ground Hog Day come to mind.

By my count, this project has appeared before Council five times and been sent to the APC twice. The last two Council appearances did not produce a decision on the project's future, rather a further delay for all involved - the proponent, the public, staff and Council. The town has yet another proposal for multi unit housing, maybe not over, but not seeming to be getting any closer to breaking ground.

The question that must be asked is why was the decision on this project deferred, yet again. This was Mayor Westbroek's opportunity to break the tie by either approving the project as is or sending it back to the proponent for, what would appear to be, radical changes. Why could he not make the decision? Was anything accomplished by the deferral? For the answer, we can only wait to see what the proponent brings to Council in the next round.

As a footnote, it should be pointed out that Council has only approved two multiunit projects during its term - one, an eight unit complex at 172 Fern Road West and the other, an four unit complex at 149 First Avenue West. The construction of the eight unit complex does not appear to be imminent as the property is currently for sale.

James Noel

March 29, 2026

We welcome your feedback and comments.

You can contact us at qualicumbeachinsights@gmail.com