72 parcels pass today’s area screen. 2 pass the proposed screen.

Two screens, same mapped parcels

The stored export contains 938 boundaries and areas, recorded as held on 9 September 2026. The screen excludes water, park and conservation zone codes, water-lot flags, retired records and parcel-class Interest records. These exclusions do not verify private ownership. Geographic coverage, missing tags and zoning accuracy have not been independently audited. Read the method and limitations.

Model results by stored zone

Lots and homes are different. A(5) contributes one additional lot to this model, but its current site-specific rule prohibits residential use. Institutional lots contribute two more; the model does not determine their residential eligibility. It does not assess existing dwellings, secondary accommodation, non-market housing delivery or the net change in residential capacity. Bylaw 186, Agriculture Table 8, A(5).

The Trust’s separate count. The 17 April 2026 staff report, attachment 3 (printed p. 9), gives 151 additional parcels under current rules (Agriculture 26, Residential 64, Rural Residential 61) and zero under its proposed scenario. Our model gives 164 and 2. The datasets, dates, scope and methods differ; there is no parcel-level reconciliation establishing the cause of the differences. The Trust’s table does not independently validate either of our totals.

Rows passing the current area approximation

Sorted by modeled additional lots, then area. A row is an area-screen result, not a claim about an owner’s intentions or a parcel’s development eligibility. Areas are rounded for display. The stored export converted unknown ALR flags to false: “not flagged” therefore does not establish that a parcel is outside the ALR.

The numerical rules used

The current model divides the entire stored parcel area by the minimum average area for its one stored zone, or by the minimum where no average is specified, applies a listed cap and subtracts the parent lot. For example, nine hectares divided by a four-hectare average gives two resulting lots: one additional lot. This is a simplified screen, not the complete subdivision rules in Bylaw 186, s. 2.8 and the zone tables.

The proposed screen uses a 64-hectare ordinary minimum: 128 hectares for two resulting lots. Bylaw 264 draft in the 24 August 2026 agenda package, s. 8.1(4). It does not model the family subdivision provisions in s. 8.4, specified exceptions in s. 8.2, or a bylaw amendment under s. 8.1(5). Non-market and Indigenous housing exceptions can serve residential purposes; their potential is uncounted here.

Limits apply to both scenarios

• Split zoning: Bylaw 186 s. 2.8(5) requires separate calculations for portions of a parcel in different zones. This model has one stored zone per parcel and does not perform that calculation. Its effect on the totals is unknown.
• Title and geometry: covenants, existing buildings, frontage, width, access, dedication requirements and feasible lot layouts are unassessed. A passing area result can still fail subdivision requirements.
• Water and sewage: the model has no potable-water or wastewater feasibility assessment. Current Bylaw 186 s. 2.8 requires more than sufficient parcel area.
• ALR: flagged parcels require separate assessment under agricultural-land law. Both proposed qualifying parcels are flagged. The historical export does not distinguish false from an unknown ALR flag.
• Exceptions: the draft retains a family-lot route with an eight-hectare parent threshold outside the ALR. Local Government Act s. 514 has ownership, family and other conditions. No individual parcel’s eligibility is established here. Specified public-benefit and housing exceptions are also uncounted.
• Coverage: zone codes are not ownership records. The export’s exclusion rules and missing-area fallback have not been independently checked against a complete cadastral and tenure inventory.

These results are a numerical approximation of stored areas and zone labels, subject to the limitations above. They are not a verified upper bound on all lawful subdivision routes, an approval count, or a housing forecast. The original GeoJSON input was not recovered during this correction; existing geometry and totals are preserved, and wording has been corrected without claiming a new parcel audit. The generator and export query are scripts/maps/build-denman-maps.py and scripts/maps/export-denman-parcels.sql.

Back to the Housing Review · How the 64 hectares got there · A letter you can send