Haldi Road Court Case Resumes This Morning
Friday, April 27, 2012 @ 4:01 AM
Prince George, B.C. – The lawyer for the City of Prince George in the Haldi Road school rezoning case says the previous zoning for the Haldi Road area provided much greater uses than just daycare. In fact he says the previous AR2 community care minor use allowed up to live in residential care.
Raymond Young says the new by-law creating the new Z-16 zoning for the former Haldi Road school creates a new use in the AR2 zone and raises the number of residents from 6 to 30.
The plan is to develop a recovery centre for women at the facility, something Haldi Road residents are opposed to. They’re not against the centre, but want it put elsewhere.
Young says community care is not a new use, its different and bigger and it’s a question of intensity. He says under P6 zoning a jail could be built or a temporary shelter. He says the City tried to tailor the requirements because P6 zoning would be too broad.
Young says two by-laws are in question here. Zoning looks at the nature of the usage and a business by-law looks at the protection of the public. He adds uses can either be business or not business. He stated that the lawyer for the petitioner, Roy Stewart, didn’t think city council’s decision to rezone the property in question was rational, based on misinformation from city staff. However Young does not agree the staff report, dealing with licencing in a rural residential area, was erroneous and says the proposed recovery centre is not inconsistent with the Official Community Plan. He says the Plan has over-arching provisions that apply to urban and rural areas and it was reasonable for council to arrive at the decision it did.
Young says all public works and by-laws must be consistent with the O.C.P. but the plan has no impact on the uses of land and is just a guide with no regulatory provisions. He says council may act in a way that is incompatible with the O.C.P. and B.C. courts recognize this principle where by-laws are in contradiction of an Official Community Plan.
Young resumes his argument before B.C. Supreme Court Justice John Truscott at 10 this morning.
Comments
City hall received one clear message this week, hopefully the court sends them another one. Time to put away the hidden agendas and bowing to special interest groups(and those who funded their campaigns) and listen to the residents.
Was listening to CBC at 5 this morning half asleep and thought I heard them say a 190 acre parcel that was trying to rezone to therapeutic community in Victoria area was turned down?
The project was likely the “therapeutic community” for the homeless to work on an existing farm in Saanich.
The project has been in the works for at least 6 years.
Looks like they were trying to take it out of the Agriculture Land Resderve. That was denied recently.
http://woodwynnfarms.org
————————————–
As far as our OCP goes, it states this under the rural area designation:
“Within the Rural Resource, and A and B designations, the City may apply more flexible zoning regulations with respect to permitted home occupations or home based businesses in recognition of the lower overall densities which occur in this area, and as a means of accommodating lifestyle and employment options.
“This provision shall be subject to appropriate limitations to PROTECT THE QUALITY OF LIFE IN THE RESIDENTIAL AREAS.”
Haldi Road is in the B designation. While we are not talking about a home business, the principle of protecting the quality of life of a unique rural desiognation should be universally applicable to such areas.
Simply put, as far as I am concerned, is that group homes have been a known fact of life in this and other cities fro some time and the City, through its planning department, should have made some general policies regarding the location of such facilities a long time ago. They failed to do this and allowed this kind of conflict to occur.
“He says council may act in a way that is incompatible with the O.C.P. and B.C. courts recognize this principle where by-laws are in contradiction of an Official Community Plan.”
Is there an actual case other than grandfathering where this contradiction of the OCP actually was brought before the courts and the courts recognized it as a principle?
Council may act contrary to the OCP if this is the case, but can city staff? Should staff have recommended that it be approved? What he is saying is they WERE contrary to the OCP but that is OK, although the OCP is a bylaw it is just a guideline.
But I thought city planning department gave their approval to the project because it was consistent with the OCP?
“But I thought city planning department gave their approval to the project because it was consistent with the OCP”
The city planners used urban residential rulings of the OCP and applied it to rural residential, and then, in their arguement, said the proposal was consistant with the OCP.
There were only a few councilors at the time that actually took the time to meet with the residence of the area. And, only a few that were running for council at the time of election. Maybe the next time people running will get knowledge with the issues at the time of election and not vote with the status quo……….
Comments for this article are closed.