Supreme Court Justice Hears Haldi Road Case
Thursday, April 26, 2012 @ 5:26 PM
Prince George, B.C. – The case between Haldi Road residents and the City of Prince George over the rezoning of the former Haldi Road school is underway in B.C. Supreme Court. The rezoning cleared the way for the school to be developed into a residential recovery centre for women. Residents say it’s the right idea but the wrong place.
The action, filed in the name of Janice Louise Sevin, is being contested on three points: that the rezoning is inconsistent with the Official Community plan, that it regulates users and not the use of the land, and that the City cannot amend the O.C.P. without complying with procedures under the Local Government Act.
Lawyer Roy Stewart, representing Ms. Sevin, says the area in question was zoned as a Rural B area with moderate intensity rural area use. The City had stated that more intense development was not envisioned in the near future, however it said there are a number of areas in which home-based, care-type businesses can be established. Stewart argues the City is talking in terms of something completely different than what is set out in the O.C.P. The applicant for the recovery centre proposed the zoning be changed to Z16: Therapeutic Community to allow for up to 30 women living in residence with a staff of 10. City council supported the application and went through the process of passing an amending by-law to allow for the centre.
Stewart contends that in its report to council, city staff provided incorrect information on the business licences available for rural facilities. He says council was misled to believe inconsistent reference to inapplicable provisions of the O.C.P. was relevant, but says there was no relevant reason for enacting the by-law. He says council was not properly informed about the rural aspects of the O.C.P. and so the outcome was not reasonable. Justice John Truscott posed the question, if I find that the by-law is consistent with the O.C.P., could I still find it unreasonable and throw it out? Stewart responded that the new by-law is unreasonable on two counts: that the recovery centre is limited to women only, and that the proper means of amending the O.C.P. to allow for the development was not followed. The City’s counsel, Raymond Young, says the O.C. P is a council guideline and to suggest staff did something wrong is not the case.
Stewart says his client brought this case forward with no ulterior motive and is not looking to gain from it. He says she brought it in the interest of public importance. He says if the judge accepts his arguments he would prefer a precautionary attitude that councilors can’t ignore the O.C.P. when enacting bylaws.
The City’s lawyer, Raymond Young, spoke to the court for a little under two hours Thursday afternoon and resumes his arguments Friday morning. We’ll present his arguments to date first thing Friday.
Comments
Sure wish people would let the public know that: yes it was an old school BUT it has been a residence for about 10 years now! A family was actually living there and even took a school bus to go to another school..
Sheesh…. ;)
typical Prince George politics. Tax dollars pay for Mr Young, the courts, and we are resposible to pay another lawyer to defend us agaist the city staff who do not understand the law.
This should have never even made it past first reading. Keep it up Shari and the rest who do not feel law applies to the city staff or council. You all are poor repersentation of our fine city.
Interesting enough the Haldi Resident lawyer suggested one day of trial while the city’s lawyer suggested two…..it is so easy to spend other peoples money……..
You have to baffle them with BS. The more you talk sometimes the more you stick your foot in your mouth
Is not the OCP a bylaw itself? If you can contradict this bylaw #7281 why not others?
Does it not say “In addition, all bylaws enacted or works undertaken by Council after adoption of an OCP must be consistent with the plan.”
It does allow for grandfathering, existing uses do not have to follow the plan but future ones do. Also it does not give the city the right to begin a project based on it being in the OCP, they still have to follow existing zonings.
So does Mr. Young know what he is talking about or is he blowing smoke when he says council does not have to follow an OCP if one is in place?
Hellllooo Slinky…….How many times has the cily council actually followed the OCP? LOL Looks like he agrees with council that they do not have to follow an OCP…LOL
Comments for this article are closed.