“The supportive residential care of up to 30 persons, where residents are not related by blood or marriage (excluding children). Therapeutic care is provided to people recovering from a limited range of issues including alcoholism and substance abused in addition to anxiety, codependency, avoidance, as well as recovery from grief and loss. Residents have access to education programs and vocational skills training.”

They might want to try that wording once more since it can have two interpretations in at least one case.

1. a child is a person.
2. the facility is maxed out with 30 persons.
3. unless the child is also considered to be in supportive care, which is highly unlikely with a 3 year old, let’s say, each child that is present will decrease the number who can actually be in supportive care.

Thus, two women with their children present, means that the maximum in supportive care would be 28.

Is that the intention? If not, then a rewrite is called for.

Interesting to note that adopted children are not considered.

Who writes this stuff, anyway?

BTW, there is nothing in the zoning bylaw which would restrict the facility to women.

Staff Report dated Feb.7th

http://www.princegeorge.ca/cityhall/mayorcouncil/councilagendasminutes/agendas/2013/2013_02_18/documents/BL8475_rpt.pdf

Thanks for the heads up Deanna?
Respectfully submitted
Concerned citizen

So one of the questions would be whether there is anything which would prevent the facility to accept out-persons who are not residents at the time to come in for supportive counselling, education progams and vocational skills training.

I would think that such a mix might be good if a person has completed their residency counselling and would come back to continue part of the counselling which may not require residency to be effective, or residency may actually be counter-productive. The same for the education and skills training component.

In fact, having such a mixture may actually be beneficial for the residents if those external additions could act as role models to help those who are nearing completion transition to the “outside” world.

I guess the residents should have spent their money on “campaign-contributions” rather than lawyers. It is pretty clear who has spent wisely.

And all the good Christians said “NIMBY”!!!

Thanks for that HappyIMW …

So it looks like the proposed new wording is actually not what it states in the above article, but it is this:

“Community Care Facility, Therapeutic: A facility for the supportive residential care of up to 30 persons who receive care or support primarily related to substance dependence, mental health issues or both.”

I can see how someone can make that mistake. It took me three times to read through the short report to Council. Without having the other material in front of me, or having this issue on my mind at all times. It is a tough read.

The paragraph in the report which states:
“The Department recommends the following definition of community care facility, therapeutic be added in place of the definition that was initially proposed through Rezoning Bylaw No. 8475

Would have been much easier to understand if it was written as:
“The Department recommends the definition (insert the old definition here) be removed and the definition (insert new definition in here) be added in its place.”

Remember the “plain language” movement of a few decades ago folks. It is still as applicable today as it was then.

HappyInMyWorld

Time to go on the offensive….say information booths outside of certain car dealerships. As no thought is being given to the neighbourhood it’s time to affect the part where the thinking is done, the wallet. When people start doing u-turns at the gate the message might get across.

Denaljo …..

1. Christians are in the minority, especially goog christians.

2. Religious right people are known to not be accommodating of others who are not like them.

3. This is not a case of not in my backyard, but a case of in which backyard do different land uses belong. In fact, THAT is what community land use plans and zoning is all about. If we did not want to protect special use areas, we woul not require zoning.

Please educate yourself of how well fucntioning societies have set themselves up to bring some level of certainty to their lives for those who have such needs. It does not help the situation to be disrespectful of those who have those needs.

Does not matter what the wording is. The people of this city should realize this affects ALL residential neighborhoods.

This city on this one issue alone, has and will continue to change the OCP with amendments. There was bylaw 8383, 8474 and now 8475. How many times should the citizens of this city allow these changes for one developer. Why do people think that when ammendments-bylaws made, do not affect the OCP.

Call it what you will it is still allowing >SPOT> zoning….

If these changes to the OCP are done – the fact remains the whole city is affected and once in the OCP the whole city will not have a say at all what happens in residential neighborhoods.

What ever the language, the developer can request building permits and other changes to the buildings and property in the future as the basic is covered.

The residents of the area and the WHOLE city for that matter would need to follow city hall to the tee as it has been proven the city will not call any opponents now or in the future. It is up to each resident in all of the city to pay attention….like that is going to happen..The city is there for the developer not for its citizens.

Styxx – gotta agree with you as many know who the campaign donors are…;)

Again, why are the residence of the area, are not being informed when they have been communicating with city hall on a weekly basis if this is not one sided…..

It appears the residence of the area have been communicating with various organizations in the city openly…..

As a courtesy from the proponents and city hall why are they not informing them in an open manner…. it is called open communication which in my opinion these two parties will not work with the residents……

I, for one, realize it applies to the whole city, as it needs to in order to not open that avenue of appeal to the BC Supreme Court. However, other avenues remain, including finding someone to take this to the Supreme Court of Canada. It would make for an interesting case and I think it is winnable. I would think that they would get a stay until the case is heard, effectively stopping the whole process in the interim.

This is NOT how to go about this. Again, shows how the City does not know how to deal with this matters in an open, collaborative fashion as municipal governments ought to be doing in the 21st century.

Guess the public meeting at Vanway did not sink in for many……Do some not realize the benefits the residents of the area are doing for the city and the taxpayers…..

Anyone willing to put their money where their mouth is…cause I would be first in line….to take it to the Supreme Court of Canada. This should not be on the backs of the Haldi residents again to cover the costs again on behalf of the citizens of PG….

How can anyone make an informed real honest decision based onwhat is going on here…with only half the information and the changes being made at every turn. This fiasco needs to be scrapped (like yesterday). Again Lets start at the beginning!!

Mayor and council IMO should decline this application. Perhaps after a year or so bring it back. Lets have proper public input required over due time, meaningful consultation to all involved…the citizens of Prince George. For the love of the people. Lets do it right and get it right!!

I can’t believe that the city has the audacity to try to ram this through however they can find a loophole. It just shows total disregard and disrespect for the residents of this city. We should throw the whole works of them out and start over.
All this for one small group who undoubtably will make money from it?
Talk about totalitarianism or dictatorship! I certainly DO hope that the public will take this to the Supreme Court. Maybe at the same time we can start another case to have this whole group thrown out too!
Just can’t believe it!

Give more, I agree with you. This decision is a total slap in the face to the residents of Prince George and, like someone else mentioned, it could happen to any of our neighborhoods. I don’t just mean the addiction and recovery centre, I mean the City could decide to do anything with our neighborhoods. I know people who had beautiful property on the Fraser off Landsdowne Road and years ago they got a sewage plant across from them.

This amending the OCP effects all of PG so all property owners beware. Your backyard might be next! If they push this through I truly hope the Haldi road residence join the regional district then proceed to boot the people out of that old school.

The best course of action is to take the City to Court, I’m sure that there are a sufficient number of people in Prince George who would be more than happy to help finance the Haldi Road Group.

Once the City understands that these people mean business, then they will consider backing away.

As it stands now, they are just waiting for Haldi Road residents to get tired of fighting.

Fat chance of that happening.

If council approves the amended zoning bylaw, do they have to have another public meeting? I would think they have to because the wording is different, but I have a funny feeling they’ll ignore the required process like they have throughout the entire fiasco.

“take it to the Supreme Court of Canada”

I do not know if there is a lawyer in PG who woul be willing to do that. I know of a case where one on the lawyers here was willing to do that for virtually nothing just to have a case taken to that level. There are bragging rights that go with that especially if the case is won.

So far, I think the City has lost its appearance(s) in Ottawa.

“years ago they got a sewage plant across from them”

That sewage plant should have gone upriver of the city water intake. That way it would have assured that the water was clean when it went into the river …. ;-)

The above definition of the facility is the original one. The amended one says:

“Community Care Facility, Therapeutic:
A facility for the supportive residential care of up to 30 persons who receive care or support primarily related to substance dependence,mental health issues or both.”

Less wording means less restrictions?

Less wording may mean less restrictions AND leave the poor people of Haldi open to a much more invasive institution when the Women’s Centre later morphs into some other lucrative institutional venture that suits the investor’s pockets and needlessly strips the Haldi neighbourhood of its character.

Palopu writes:
The best course of action is to take the City to Court, I’m sure that there are a sufficient number of people in Prince George who would be more than happy to help finance the Haldi Road Group.

Once the City understands that these people mean business, then they will consider backing away.

You want to help at this time then email your concerns to the city, my suggestion would be to all of these addresses:

; dwasnik@city.pg.bc.ca>; KSoltis@city.pg.bc.ca>; IWells@city.pg.bc.ca>; wbabicz@city.pg.bc.ca> ; ‘feverittpg@gmail.com’; ‘Cameron@cameronstolz.ca’; ‘Dave”cityclerk@city.pg.bc.ca’; ‘mayor@city.pg.bc.ca’; ‘feverittpg@gmail.com’; ‘garthfrizzell@citynotice.ca’; ‘councillorlhallpg@gmail.com’; ‘akoehler@telus.net’; ‘murry.krause@cinhs.org’; ‘bskakun@telus.net’; ‘Cameron@CameronStolz.ca’; ‘councillordavewilbur@shaw.ca’

missed one: mayorandcouncil@city.pg.bc.ca

You want to help the residents email:

haldiroad64@gmail.com

Round and round we go…where it stops/starts nobody knows…sorry just had to say it ;)
Just keep pushing forward or backwards till we get the job done and what is that exactly? Oh the memories…………………..
No sarcasim intended

It is obvious that City Council will do anything to get this rezoning passed to allow the investor to fit something/anything into the old Haldi Road School. The old school was gutted in anticipation of a shoo through of the rezoning by the current council….only thing that went wrong was that the Haldi neighborhood fought back against an illegal move by the city whereby their rezoning plan didn’t fit the OCP. So what does the City do now, try to amend the OCP and when they find their new rezoning application doesn’t fit the OCP, they are going to rescind the 2nd reading of the rezoning for Haldi so it fits the OCP proposed amendment better. My concerens are:
1. Why is the OCP being tinkered with so that the investor and NOT the neighborhood is protected.
2. What is so special about the Haldi Road School that this type of centre will fit nowhere else in the city? Haldi area according to the current OCP is not a fit legally. Could it just be that the investor gutted the school before the rezoning was passed and is now stuck with a hollow shell in anticipation of a shoo through of the rezoning by the city. This building can no longer be sold as a home to fit into residential zoning so the investor is trying to force it onto the residents so he can recoup his investment.
3. Why is the city working so hard to try to plug all loopholes (i.e. rescinding 2nd reading of the zoning bylaw) and forcing this upon the Haldi neighbourhood residents?
4. How is it that the city can allow rezoning for such an institution when the Haldi location DOES NOT HAVE WATER AND SEWER?

There is so much opposition to this by not only the Haldi neighborhood but also by many other city residents who feel that the city is going about this rezoning in a totally unfair, unethical and bullying fashion….what will it take to make the coucillors wake up and represent the citizens and not the investor. If this rezoning is allowed to pass along with the OCP amendment, then the City will have a free reign to do whatever they wish wherever in the city they wish…Wake up residents if you don’t want this to happen. Let the city know that we want to have our concerns not only heard but acted upon……let big business deal with their losses but not on the back of taxpayers!

Interesting enough I went on the BC assessment for the property… It was a school, a residence, an apartment and now for 2013 the owners have classified it as a “Rectory” Description: Rectory
Year Built: 1978
Even the year is wrong as it should be 1971….

Does this mean they are able to get their land taxes cheaper???

oops, my mistake the year should not be 1971.