Proposed Bylaw Amendments Not Linked to Haldi Rd Matter
Monday, August 27, 2012 @ 3:57 AM
Prince George, B.C. – When Prince George City Council meets this evening it will be asked to approve some amendments to zoning bylaw 7850, 2007.
At first blush, one might think the City is trying to clear the way to allow the development of a hotly contested project in a rural region.
Specifically, one might ask; do the suggested amendments to the definitions of Community Care minor, and Community Care major, have any link to the City losing the court case on the rezoning of a piece of rural residential property in the Haldi Road region, for the use as a therapeutic community?
The answer, according to Ian Wells, the Acting Director of Planning for the City of Prince George, is, no, there is no connection. “This is an effort to simply bring our definitions in line with the provincial regulations” says Wells. He also adds, the changes have been sparked by child day care operators who are seeking to expand their operations in other areas of the City but the definitions offered by the City and the Province don’t match up.
The City’s definition of Community Care Minor allows residential care for up to 6 persons and “the use of a principal dwelling for a day care licensed under the Community Care and Assisted Living Act, for up to ten persons”. The amendment, if approved, would increase the maximum number to 12, to mirror the maximum allowed under the Community Care and Assisted Living Act.
The City’s definition of Community Care Major allows residential care for 7 persons or more, and “ a daycare licensed under the Community Care and Assisted Living Act, for 11 or more persons.” The amendment, if approved would boost that number to 13 or more, again, to mirror the Provincial legislation limits.
The City has announced it would not appeal the recent court decision which quashed the rezoning bylaw that permitted the former Haldi Road Elementary School to be used as a residential therapeutic community for up to 30 women. The court decision means the zoning on that particular property reverts to its previous zoning, which was AR2 Rural Residential. The permitted primary uses for property zoned AR2 Rural Residential includes, community care facility minor, so any attempt to have a therapeutic community or major residential treatment centre developed on that site would have to go through the re-zoning process again.
“If you look at the wording of the actual bylaw, you can see that we are talking about licensed child day care” says Wells. He is correct, there is no change in the proposed wording of the bylaw when it comes to the definitions as they pertain to the residential care aspect of the definition. Community Care Facility Major allows , residential care of seven or more persons while Community Care Facility Minor allows for residential care of up to 6 persons.
It is only the numbers associated with a day care facility aspect of the definitions which are being revised.
Comments
Beb, thanks for the clarification.
Oops, I meant Ben.
The Council information states:
âThe main purpose of increasing the maximum number of persons cared for within a community care facility, minor is to ACCOMMODATE THE GROUP CHILDCARE PROGRAM FOR SCHOOL AGED CHILDREN. The BC Community Care and Assisted Living Act includes a group childcare program for up to 12 SCHOOL AGED CHILDREN during the time before, or after, regular school hours (i.e. not all day daycare). THIS CATEGORY OF CHILDCARE WAS CREATED FOLLOWING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ALL-DAY KINDERGARTEN.
So, while the act was changed to accommodate the before and after school care program, the Cityâs increase will accommodate ALL daycare âminorâ uses.
The definition includes these uses under the daycare section (b) nursery school, emergency care, out of school care, family day care, special needs day care, group day care, occasional, casual, or SHORT TERM SUPERVISED CHILD CARE.
Yet it is only the latter which purportedly gave rise to the provincial change, whatever that may be since we are not given the previous wording and the new wording.
So when the province changes the size up or down again, we have to make the same zoning use change? In my view, that is poor policy and poor regulation draftsmanship.
I think this is a substantive change which should go to a public hearing to deal with the City related imapacts of the proposed change. We have to remember, those are maximum numbers that the province dictates. There is nothing that states that Cities cannot restrict those numbers based on community characteristics, which is the City’s responsiblity.
http://www.princegeorge.ca/cityhall/mayorcouncil/councilagendasminutes/agendas/2012/2012_08_27/documents/BL8449_rpt_MERGED.pdf
Public hearing? They have no time for that!
This story clearly shows how their fingers are worked to the bone already “Council Agenda a Light One”
And besides this group has shown us that they know what is best for us, or their campaign manager, either one it doesn’t matter:) Carry on citizen.
The court documents for the Haldi case are public knowledge – you will need to pay for the pages… Looks like this information is what the City gave to the courts as evidence.
School enrollment is down is it not? Why would there be more spaces needed for daycare? I can see this change to a new bylaw if Prince George was a bigger city but the population has not increased. Prince George is not the lower mainland or the Okanagan.
Why would there be more spaces needed for daycare?
Two years ago the province switched to all day Kindergarten for 5 year olds. That generated the need for additional part time daycare spaces after school is out. Of course it must also have reduced length of time at daycare facilities as children switched from daycare to kindergarten for more of the day.
I suspect the real reason for the increase was that having 10 children for all of the afternoon broght in more money than having those 10 children for something like 3 hours less a day. Increasing the number of children for the shorter period would bring some of that earning opportunity back.
That is the best I can do to figure out the logic of this whole game. Perhaps someone who owns/operates a daycare can explain it from the practitioner pint of view.
There are more dynamics at play than just population.
For instance, there are changes in how many people go to work and have to put their children into daycare. It can be on an increase or decrease.
It would be nice if there were daycare centres that allowed more overnight stays. There has been a demand over the years due to couples working nights and/or shift work. Not all people have grand parents or family in PG.
I did not realize we had any of those.
I would think there is a difference with space requirements when it comes to overnight sleeping and a half hour quiet time on a rolled up thin foam pad on the floor or whatever is done these days.
We do not have any overnight or weekend daycares to my knowledge in this city – we haven’t for years.
I checked the centres Spring 2012- almost 1 – 2 years after the kindergarten change. One centre is open from 07:00 – 18:00. The others from 07:45 on and close anywhere from 16:30 – 17:30. In fact in the summer months a lot of the daycares are either closed for the whole summer or 2 – 4 weeks at a time.
Another reason the provincial standards do not affect us here as it would in larger cities – no overnight sitting.
Comments for this article are closed.