Keep them honest.

Right on Janice! Rumor has it that Marshall was planning the Haldi Road Residential Treatment Center for toddlers addicted to their suckies, blankies, or stuffey toys:)

To be serious it is better to get these things ironed out beforehand to avoid another messy court case.

What an Idiot! Were talking about toddlers…..I suppose they are going to drink all of the water in the neighbourhood too. These Haldi People have gone too far.

WE DONT WANT TODDLERS IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD!!!!

NO TODDLERS IN MY BACK YARD!!!!

I guess the judge didn’t realize that a school also has many people going potty everyday and drinking a lot of water. Somebody’s bloody nuts here. That building was a school before — so what’s the difference — the way we spin it?? I’m betting Janice would change her tune if some members of her immediate family required such a facility.

traveller – The judge did know it was an old school. He also knew it was a residence for many years after. The Haldi people made the point right off the bat with City Hall that it was a water issue and it was others that sluffed it off.

The school had enrollment and was shut down due to the water. The students and staff were not allowed to drink the water and it was our tax dollars that paid for the bottled drinking water..

The odds are that someone will have a family member doing drugs or alcohol – so why do you assume she has not got a family member that has or is utilizing services?

Maybe this will wake up the city that there is a water problem out there….By the way – the City has admitted to this, when 2 subdivision proposals were turned down previously by the city…

From the judgement, water was not an issue for the court.

The issue for the court was that the OCP and the proposed new site use were incongruent.

Change the OCP first, then the zoning.

Thus a new public hearing is required.
—————————————–

As far as the issue of changing the definition in the zoning to match a definition which the province uses that has nothing to do with land use, that is a separate issue.

I have previously stated on here that the City should not attach definitions or zoning purposes to definitions used by the povince for totally different purposes. That is simply poor draftsmanship of regulations which leads to constant updating at the whims of others.

Find another way to do it without outside jusidictions having a say in land use which is the City’s jurisdiction, not the province’s.

Kids in daycares don’t use water for showering, doing laundry, etc…most don’t even use the toilet!

The Haldi place needed water for up to 30 people for all those things. They also said they were going to do small commercial stuff like a bakery etc. They also had to have fire sprinklers. There are no fire hydrants in Haldi if there was fire. The septic for that school would not be the size needed to handle the waste water either.

If we wish to deal with the water issue then we have to do a calculation based on:

1. A school

– that runs 5 days a week with possible community use in evenings and weekend

– virtually no use during 2 summer months and 4 weeks drin easter and christmas break

2. a recovery centre

– with 24/7/365 use for 30 people with all that entails – kitchen, bathing being the main additional uses.

If I knew some numbers and some info on possible “hobbies” then I could do the code calcualtion. It may be very close to the same or somewhat worse due to the type of use. So, if that is the reason they shut the school down then there is no change.

“They also had to have fire sprinklers”

Why? That is a small, non-combustible construction, low hazard building.

Why does a city have to have their definition in zoning match the provincial definition?

You may also note there is a portion of the same bylaw that deals with overnight care, this amendment does allow that to be extended as well as a matter of inclusion. This does not match the provincial guideline as their only deals with daycare…

“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).”

What?…”not all day daycare”…? So why are we applying this to all day daycare situations in Prince George?

Included in this city bylaw “This use includes limited overnight accommodation for minors who are supervised under a prescribed program.”

Here is only one item: The definition of Community Care Facility, Minor allows for “the use of a principal dwelling for a day care licensed.
One of the questions asked:

Is Community care facility, minor/major classified as a home business? If so what home base classification 1, 2, or 3?

Reading the OCP it looks as though it may not be able to fit into the R2 RURAL Residential. All the questions need to be answered by the city and at the public hearing council and city agreed.

slinky – that question along with many was asked at the public meeting and is yet to be answered by the city. I feel there were some basic questions asked, but why was no one able to have an answer? The city should have that OCP almost memorized by heart. The Mayor and council nah,….they do not get paid for that…

The water was the main issue the Haldi residents brought up on the first fiasco and were not heard – the city is well aware of the aquifer. IMO asking for these facilities to be ok’d if there is city water and sewer is not out of line….even for health and safety reasons.

In my opinion, there is no one at City Hall who has a sound knowledge of writing Zoning bylaws which will withstand challenges.

They simply do not have the KSA = Knowledge, Skill and Attitude

BTW, if this was done properly through an OCP change, then the planning department would have to come up with at least a general description of where such facilities would fit into the City. At best, they would do a map overlay of the areas in several different parts of the city and, if they wanted to, include Haldi Road as one of those areas.

In fact, it could be written in such a way that closed elementary schools and even junior high and high schools could be specifically identified as making excellent facilities.

Then run with it at a public hearing and see what happens. We cannot exclude such facilities from this community. We have to have some understanding of where other communities have successfully located those facilities no different from any other specific land uses.

Once that is done and accepted, then let those who want to develop such facilities look at their options and go for the rezoning.

That is the way I understand is the proper way. Why does this City try to do so many things by the back door? No wonder no one trusts this administration and Council and others who came before in the last 15 or so years?

If one wants to save some money in operating this city, try being more open. It will not only feel good but it will make things much simpler and less expensive.

I was jusr perusing some zoning bylaws …

Here is a nice and simple one under an Urban Residential District the folloing is one of the uses allwed:

“Mental health facilities that provide residential treatment and are similar in size, facilities and occupancy to other residential structures permitted in the zoning district.

To me that follows the famous and practical “Keep It Simple, Stupid” principle.

Gus wrote:”Keep It Simple, Stupid”

Thanks for the laugh I almost fell out of my chair :) ;)

Your above 2 posts is what Haldi residents have been trying to tell the city…sheesh

Gus writes “In fact, it could be written in such a way that closed elementary schools and even junior high and high schools could be specifically identified as making excellent facilities.”

Cannot do this with Haldi road as it is not the same as the rest of the schools that are closed. Haldi road school has been in private hands for to many years.

Haldi Road school was classified as a residence by the city years ago……It was sold by the school district therefore does not follow the usage proceedures by the school board…