Concept artwork for the Commonage development project (Image Credit: Kerkhoff Develop-Build)

By Liam Verster

OCP Amendment First Reading

More steps required for proposed Commonage development to go forward

Mar 23, 2026 | 3:01 PM

A proposed major development in Vernon’s Commonage area has gotten its initial go ahead, but it is far from being ready to have shovels in the ground.

Kerkhoff Develop-Build has proposed building a neighbourhood located at 580 Commonage Road that would include 3,571 housing units, with 40 per cent of them to be set at attainable rates. The developer had previously proposed 4,000 units but later revised the plan to number of units and their footprints to lessen the development’s encroachment on environmentally sensitive areas, and also committed to covering infrastructure costs.

The developer applied for an Official Community Plan (OCP) amendment in the first steps to move ahead with the project, and as part of that provided Vernon City Council with a preliminary lifecycle cost analysis.

Council received the application for the OCP amendment at the regular meeting Monday, March 23, with staff recommending that Council give the OCP amendment first reading, have another comprehensive lifecycle cost analysis done for the project, and that restrictive covenants regarding attainable housing be registered on the property ahead of further approvals.

Before a decision was made, some City Councillors raised concerns with the applicants submissions thus far.

Charger rollout

Phased approach planned for EV chargers at Vernon ALC

8h ago

Secondary Dwellings

Coldstream considering more housing on agricultural lands

10h ago

Wildfire Risks

Okanagan's Fire Danger Rating already up to Moderate

Apr 23, 2026

Councillor Brian Guy stated he was unimpressed with the preliminary cost analysis report.

“I’ve had a good look at the material that’s been presented to us by the applicant and the report that [city staff] have written, and what I end up with is a that I have a much better understanding of the benefits related to this project than I do of the costs,” Guy stated at Monday’s council meeting.

“To make a responsible and defensible decision on this application, what I need to have is a reasonably good handle and an approximately equal handle on both the benefits and the costs. I’ve only got a decent handle on the benefits but not on the costs. This is the area that’s really the most fuzzy with me and it’s really one of the areas that we have to think about here, the economics. I’ve got to have a much better handle on the long term implications for future city budgets and taxation before I can decide if I can support this or not.”

Though he raised these concerns, Guy did say he was happy to see within the recommendations that a more comprehensive cost analysis would be required before the project could move forward any further.

Councillor Kari Gares also agreed with Guy about the lifecycle cost analysis, though noted the plan was conceptual.

“When we have a conceptual idea, we don’t necessarily know where all the roadways are going to go, where the piping is going to go, so I am struggling to weigh that because even if we get the full scale costs analysis it’s still going to have some significant assumptions that are going to be embedded in that and this council is going to have to weigh those assumptions,” Gares explained.

Gares added she struggled with the costs associated with the largest proposed project in the city’s history and that they needed to tread carefully in weighing the costs and benefits.

Councillor Kelly Fehr also expressed concern about the precedent this project would set in building more sprawling neighbourhoods in Vernon rather than infill.

“Historically, when developments are approved outside of planned growth areas, they rarely remain isolated,” Fehr stated.

“They tend to create pressure for additional adjacent development which incrementally expands the urban footprint beyond what was originally intended. Each additional expansion brings new infrastructure requirements, roads, water, sewer, fire protection, and ultimately increases long-term costs for taxpayers, particularly when those systems are spread over larger geographical areas.

“In my view, this isn’t just about one application, it’s about wether we’re opening the door to a pattern of growth in the Commonage area that is more costly and less efficient to service over time.”

Councillor Brian Quiring also said that the OCP amendment “boiled down to one question: do you want to see this type and amount of housing in this location?” and was in favour of moving the application along and having a public hearing regarding it at a future date.

Mayor Victor Cumming also stated that the city knew the magnitude and significance of this project and that their role in deciding the future of this proposed development would not be taken lightly.

Council ultimately voted unanimously in support of the recommendations, giving their initial approval for the project pending the necessary reports.

Following that decision, Cumming brought forward a motion to have a public hearing relating to the proposed development before June 30, 2026.

The public hearing was contingent on the cost analysis being submitted at least three weeks ahead of the public hearing date to allow council to review, discuss and give second reading to the OCP amendment. The Mayor’s motion also called for the city to hire on a third party consultant to undertake the cost analysis at a cost of no more than $50,000, funded through the Uncommitted Unexpended Reserve.

Quiring said they should allow time for the applicant to address the findings of the cost analysis report, but also agreed that the public hearing should go ahead of the summer so, if approved, the project could move ahead and not become an election issue.

Council voted in the mayor’s motion and directed staff to schedule a public hearing for the matter.

by Liam Verster

View Comments