1801 Roeder Ave - savary island committee

C. ROGER SAHLIN
Greetings Janine,
1801 Roeder Ave., Suite 156
Bellingham, WA 98225
Tel. 360.734.0680
Fax. 360.734.6963
Cell: 360-739-0301
E-Mail:
rrrconstruction@qwestoffice.net
Thank you for your email of May 4, 2010 in which you invited comment on the Savary Island
Official Community Plan (OCP) update. I appreciate the invitation to comment and share my family’s
views on the OCP with the Savary Island Committee (SIC). So that my comments on the OCP can be as
useful as possible, I am still in the process of reviewing the proposed changes. My family’s comments will
be provided and forwarded to you shortly.
I would like to share with you and the SIC a bit about my family, and its 39-year history on
Savary. I would also like to take this opportunity to provide background on the recent efforts to resolve the
ownership issues of D.L. 1375.
I have an emotional attachment as well as a significant financial investment in the long-term future
of Savary Island.
It has always been my plan to build summer cottages for my family on D.L. 1375. We haven’t
done so yet because my children are geographically dispersed due to their career paths and growing
families of their own. However, we are now all at a place in our lives that it makes sense to realize our
collective dream of creating the setting for family time together on Savary.
Right after World War II my parents were boating to Princess Louisa Inlet and stopped at the
Royal Savary Hotel on Savary Island. That was how we came to know about Savary Island. Later in 1969,
the current Sahlin family members began staying at Ashworth’s Royal Savary Hotel.
In the late 1950s, Eureka Sawmills (1956) Ltd purchased D.L. 1375, which was being logged by
the seller at the time of sale.
In 1971, my father Carl Sahlin and four others, including three Canadians formed an investment
company called Warm Beach Investments Limited (“Warm Beach”) and purchased the Savary Land from
Eureka Sawmills. This began our family’s long ownership on Savary Island.
My father, who passed away in 1973, instilled in me and my sister good land stewardship
principles. I have passed those ideals on to my children and other family members.
My family has regularly vacationed on Savary Island with other family members and friends over
the past 35 years. In 1977, we vacationed on Savary Island with David Syre’s family whom I got to know
quite well. As this friendship grew over the years, David and I decided in 1981 to buy D.L. 1375 as
individuals from Warm Beach.
In order to be most efficient, David and I agreed that his work address at Trillium Corporation
would be the address for all correspondence relating to D.L. 1375. Trillium Corporation never was an
owner, and none of the Sahlin’s has ever worked at Trillium Corporation.
In 1995, we were approached by a Canadian developer to purchase and develop D.L. 1375. We
declined the offer. While discussing that offer to purchase, David and I learned that we had different goals
for the Savary Land.
As a result, we entered into a partition agreement, whereby my family was to have the western
half of D.L. 1375 plus Lots 35 and 36 of D.L. 1376, and David would have the eastern half of D.L. 1375
and a parcel in D.L. 1373. After that private Partition Agreement was signed, I engaged various
professionals to locate a family home-site. As part of these efforts we performed a 1 1/2 foot contour

Janine Reimer
May 6, 2010
Page 2 of 4
survey, and located every tree on twenty acres at Beacon Point. Further, preliminary designs by two
architectural firms were also done in preparation for building the family cottage.
After that Partition Agreement was signed, we filed the first application with the Ministry of
Transportation and Highways (MOTH) (the “First Application”) in which David would make 10 acre lots
on his eastern half of D.L. 1375, and my family would keep our half (the western half) “as is”, planning to
build the main cottage on Beacon Point.
After the First Application was filed, we were advised by MOTH that it would not approve the
proposed subdivision into one large parcel (Sahlin’s western half) and the eastern half into Syre’s 10 acre
subdivision of lots if in the future our family ever wanted to divide our portion of D.L. 1375 into smaller
lots. The MOTH wanted the property divided at the same time for the sake of the roads. This forced our
family to participate in a second application, the subdivision of 36 lots on the entire parcel of D.L. 1375.
As a result, a second application was filed with MOTH which provided for the subdivision of our
family’s western half of D.L. 1375 into sixteen 10 acre lots. When the Second Application was filed,
David and I verbally agreed that my family would keep its western half after that subdivision occurred.
The subdivision did not proceed. While we were in the process of costing the work necessary to
comply with the conditions of the subdivision approval and addressing issues related to the subdivision
conditions, David sold his 50% interest to The Nature Trust (TNT). This transfer occurred prior to the
Partition Agreement being implemented. I had no advance notice of this transfer, and I learned of it
through a press release issued by TNT on April 3, 2002.
In the press release, TNT raised a concept that our family would retain some land for a family
compound and sell the balance to them. In June 2002, I met with TNT representatives, where I presented
the first of several preliminary drawing responding to TNT’s concept. At the meeting TNT rejected any
knowledge of or responsibility to the Partition Agreement between David and me.
In May 2003 our family then offered to sell 70 acres of its one-half interest in D.L. 1375 to TNT,
keeping 90 acres including approximately the western quarter of D.L. 1375 and Lots 35 and 36. If that
proposal had been accepted, TNT would have 80.4% of D.L. 1375, 78.4% of the inland relict dune area and
96.1% of shoreline considered by certain persons to be sensitive. That proposal was rejected by TNT. I
was advised by a representative of TNT that they could legally force a sale of D.L. 1375, requiring the
parties to bid against each other and that the ecological importance of the Savary Land was less important
than they originally believed.
Between 2002 and 2005, our family made 3 written proposals where the Sahlin family would
retain some portion of Beacon Point and sell approximately 126 acres to TNT. There were five proposed
cottages with specific sites that underwent review for environmental sensitivity; a $60,000 endowment fund
whose earnings were to be used to eradicate the invasive species of Scotch Broom at Beacon Point, a list of
family imposed environmental protections, and building materials / design requirements. Each of these
proposals was rejected by TNT. TNT rejected any Sahlin ownership or use on the southwest two thirds of
the property, and our proposals to convey portions of D.L. 1375 to TNT. Despite these rejections, we
continued to make proposals in an effort to resolve the ownership amicably.
In July 2005, our family made another proposal with a different configuration in which we would
retain 66 acres and sell 94 acres to TNT. If that proposal was accepted, TNT would have 80.4% of D.L.
1375, 78.4% of the inland dunes, and 72.2% of the shoreline. We structured that offer to address TNT’s
concerns regarding potentially sensitive areas of D.L. 1375 identified by TNT. In this proposal the Sahlin
Family presented a botanist’s review of its favored five sites which suggested one be moved to a different
location. That offer was rejected.
TNT said they would be unable to negotiate as both parties wanted parts of the same land, the
southwest portions including Beacon Point. Therefore, TNT proposed a partition of the property.
In September 2005 TNT made its first proposal for partition. In that proposal, TNT offered that it
keep 193 acres of D.L. 1375 (while our family would keep 145). Our family would keep almost all of the

Janine Reimer
May 6, 2010
Page 3 of 4
less-desirable north shore and none of the more desirable south shore. This proposal was not acceptable to
our family.
I nonetheless continued to discuss partition as desired by TNT. Around December 2006, my
family made another proposal to TNT whereby D.L. 1375 would be partitioned so that both TNT and my
family would end up with 50% of D.L. 1375. We proposed three different options, and invited TNT to
choose any one of them. Each of those three options provided for an equal sharing of acreage, north and
south shore, and the eastern and western segments.
TNT rejected all three options. Instead, TNT made a counter proposal which would give TNT the
majority of the western half of the property and the majority of the south shore of D.L. 1375. This proposal
was not acceptable to me or to my family.
I understand that TNT’s corporate purpose is land conservation and management. While I support
those purposes, I do not believe that they should necessarily be applied with respect to the Savary Land to
the exclusion of all other legal and appropriate land use purposes.
My family and I have continually made efforts to use the Savary Land in a manner that is
consistent with the preservation of sensitive areas. We have recognized that such development must be
undertaken carefully with a view to minimizing the environmental impact of development.
To achieve that goal, we have commissioned work by engineers, surveyors, and other
professionals. That work includes the following:
� an ecological assessment by Golder Associates Ltd. in 2006 on five selected building sites on
D.L. 1375 near Beacon Point;
� a study into the water and well situation on D.L. 1375, both for our family’s use and for the
sake of improving fire protection on Savary Island. Based on this study, we proposed that
Savary Island’s fire department have access to water from a well on a Sahlin parcel;
� a timber study was done to quantify and identify unique trees on D.L. 1375 in order to protect
them;
� an archeological impact assessment was performed on D.L. 1375 by Golder Associates Ltd.
The purpose of that report was to identify and evaluate archeological resources on D.L. 1375;
identify and evaluate adverse impacts to archaeological sites that might result from
development; and recommend viable alternatives for managing potential adverse impacts on
any identified sites;
� geotechnical reports were provided by Golder Associates Ltd. regarding D.L. 1375, including
the rate of soil erosion, setbacks, road construction, water access and similar matters; and
� an architect completed a design for proposed boardwalk-style access to the shoreline to reduce
erosion and human impact upon the shoreline. We also proposed that interpretive and
educational signage be erected to enlist public stewardship of sensitive areas by educating the
public about the proposed private conservation areas and about D.L. 1375’s unique ecological
characteristics.
These expenditures have not only benefitted my family, but have also been a general benefit to the
Savary Island community. I have freely shared the studies and reports I have commissioned with TNT,
with the Powell River Regional District, and with others interested in Savary Island.
My family and I have taken an active role in managing the land throughout our decades of
ownership to protect both the sensitive areas and the public interest in D.L. 1375.
Another example of my family’s commitment to Savary Island involves a proposal for the
construction of an emergency helipad on the Savary Land.

Janine Reimer
May 6, 2010
Page 4 of 4
There was an airstrip on D.L. 1375. It was built in 1962 by a forestry company, and was used for
emergency flights between 1980 and 1999. When those flights ceased in 1999, this left Savary Island
without emergency air service. Following an emergency evacuation in 2002, I began to advocate for the
establishment of a helipad on the Savary Land.
As part of this advocacy we commissioned various surveys of potential sites and engaged in
negotiations for the placement of a helipad on D.L. 1375. In 2003, the Savary Island Fire Department and
the helicopter contractor approved a site if four to six trees were cut nearby. At that time, TNT stated that
the cutting of the trees was acceptable to them. However, I believed that because these were old growth
trees located on a “live dune”, any cutting of these trees was unacceptable. I informed TNT of this on
January 13, 2004, suggested an alternate site on the Savary Land and offered to pay $20,000 for the
construction of the helipad at that site. At that time the “live dune” had been identified by The B.C.
Conservation Data Centre (CDC) as habitat for the camissonia contorta primrose. The CDC also had
identified that the road’s current location was having an adverse impact on the “live dune”.
Later in 2004, a new Emergency Service Contractor was approved by the Province who informed
me that a helipad would require significantly different improvements than had been previously discussed.
Again, I hired a professional surveyor who produced another plan for clearing and siting the helipad. The
main issue is night landing which now requires close to a full size airstrip. However, this plan required an
environmental impact that was also larger than I was willing to accept. To date, no helipad has been
constructed.
TNT has never financially contributed to this study, or any of the consulting or engineering reports
that the Sahlin family has undertaken with respect to the Savary Land.
I have never received an offer from TNT to purchase any land owned by the Sahlin family.
However, as described above we have offered to sell portions of the Savary Land to TNT on more than one
occasion. None of those offers were accepted.
Our intention is for my wife and me to build a cottage for ourselves on the Savary Land, and for
each of our children to have their own cottages. All the cottages would be on parcels of not less than
10 acres each and would comply with the spirit and parameters of the Savary Island Official Community
Plan (the “OCP”)
Long before the OCP was adopted, my family and I have strived to minimize the “human
footprint” on the property, since we value the forest and beaches, and want to protect the ecologically
sensitive areas.
Given my life long association with Savary, and our 39-year family ownership of land on Savary,
it is our belief that Savary is a very unique and special place. The OCP is an important document that can
be used to guide development in a manner which will preserve the ecological importance of live dunes,
unique plant species, and reasonable private use of the land. We believe in private property rights and that
a Qualified Professional can balance our goals of development. Protection of sites of archeological
importance and respect of first nation’s heritage is also of the upmost importance. For these important
reasons, the proposed changes to, and spirit of the OCP must be based on sound, defensible, scientific
investigation and knowledge. Through a comprehensive understanding of Savary Island, we can hope to
preserve our unique opportunity.
I appreciate the efforts of the SIC and look forward to working together toward the future of
Savary Island.
Sincerely,
C. Roger Sahlin