Campground Plan Quashed
Monday, November 4, 2013 @ 8:17 PM
Prince George, B.C.- An application to have an RV and campground developed west of Highway 16 south of Gauthier Road in the west end of the City has been defeated.
Too many unanswered questions, on issues of air quality, the aquifer, and sewage, left the majority of Councillors concerned about the project.
The application calls for a maximum of 150 camping “stalls” and maximum allowable stay of 250 consecutive days.
The idea didn’t sit well with Northern Health. In a letter to Council Northern Health notes the “camping” experience normally includes a campfire, and that is not something Northern Health could support because of the sensitive airshed in Prince George.
The applicants say the campground plan is still in the conceptual stage, and it is not anticipated there would be long term guests who would be burning wood all day or night but they are willing to “work with concerned agencies.” Another option being considered is to only allow campfires at some of the 150 stalls, or perhaps a single communal campfire spot, or that the campsite control the type of wood used.
Neighbours are also concerned, saying the increased traffic would disrupt their rural lifestyle. With only 6 or 8 residents between the end of pavement on Gauthier Road to the proposed campsite, the increased traffic would be a significant change in their lifestyle.
The applicant says the plan envisions campers arriving in the evening, and leaving the following morning.
But neighbours to the proposed site, question if Bilnor Road can accommodate the traffic saying the road can barely cope with the current traffic of the 8 vehicles of the local residents.
Hartway RV Campground owner Cindy Brodhagen says to zone another piece of property for an RV park is “ludicrous” as the Treasure Cove Casino and Walmart offer overnight camping for free. She says she has counted 38 rigs parked at the casino on any given day in the summer when her RV park is empty.
Primary access to the campground will be from Bilnor Road off Gauthier Road which has a light controlled intersection with highway 16. A secondary access point is Sindia Road, which is to be used only in an emergency situation.
Another neighbour , Glen Parrett asked “What does an emergency access road mean? Will it be locked off, and if it is open, people will use it.” He says it is most likely people will use Sindia Road to Sykes Roads to get access to highway 16. “Simply put, the infrastructure simply cannot support the type of development being proposed.” He questioned where the development would be getting its water “BC Assessment has reduced the value of homes in the area because of the low level of water in the aquifer , so where is the water coming from?”
While the proponent says the campground will be looking to pull water from the aquifer, the sewage will be handled in a lagoon. The proponent could not say how much water consumption could be expected but the Hartway RV owner advised the water consumption would be high, as people fill their units and wash their units.
The proponents say the access to Sindia would be “gated” and only open in the event of an emergency.
Terry Robert of the Prince George Air Improvement Roundtable, confirmed a point made by an area resident that campfire smoke would drift through College Heights.
Councillors Murry Krause, Brian Skakun Albert Koehler, and Lyn Hall voted against third reading, while Councillors Cameron Stolz, Garth Frizzell and Dave Wilbur supported the plan. Councillor Frank Everitt and Mayor Shari Green were not present.
Comments
There is an rv park just behind the art knapps less than a km away makes no sense that this would even pass.
Maybe they should change it to a hotel, city seems to be keen to have them built these days.
Life would be perfect if a sani-dump was installed at Wally Mart. Could be a gold rush for TP sales in the store. Win win.
I watched that fiasco of a meeting.
Several notions that I simply cannot agree with, and luckily there were a majority that could not support it either for their own reasons.
1.The notion that this would simply be an added use to an existing zoning and thus would be acceptable is ludicrous. 150 trailers/motor homes (even though they may only get 50 or less as an average over the year) is not exactly compatible with the other uses allowed.
2.The fact that L&M engineering could not answer some simple questions around water usage and sewer usage. They should know whether they will build a central service building for showers, toilets, washbasins, laundry, small store, residence(s) for the owners/managers, even a small swimming pool. And then direct hookups for water and sanitary services for all, or just some, sanidump stations and water stations to service the trailers. So, they should have a general idea of what the owner is proposing to build and be able to determine from tabular information, based on known soil conditions in that part of the city, what size lagoon is required and what amount of water will be required to service the development. I really do not know why the engineers even bothered to show up. They had no answers to anything. Where was administration in this, allowing such a useless presentation to waste Councilâs time?
3.Then we have goode olde Councillor Stolz putting his foot in his mouth again when he stated that Walmart and the Casino did not have all those services. He obviously does not understand that eventually such âcampersâ will spend some money to do laundry, have some showers in more than 24â wide shower stalls with good water pressure available. There is a place for both the cheapie parking lots and the full service âcampgroundsâ.
Pathetic, very pathetic!
chloe wrote:
“There is an rv park just behind the art knapps less than a km away makes no sense that this would even pass.”
The City does not look at proposals from the point of view of the business case. That is the general approach to approval for developments.
However, when one really looks a little further into such cases as the Haldi Rd. shelter, Council and administration are making judgments based on perceived needs of the service in the City rather than on land use.
Perceived needs is a “business” decision by Council. It was the key argument made by the proponents and at every opportunity opponents used to argue based on land use, that was quashed due to need.
We all know that the “need” could be accommodated in many other areas.
The application calls for a maximum of 150 camping âstallsâ and maximum allowable stay of 250 consecutive days.
Maybe someone from the city could take some action on a very distinctive RV that’s been parked at the Treasure Cove since late April or possibly early May.
I watched the meeting tonight and my first question is: Why would someone put in a lame brain proposal such as this without having their ducks in a row?
Why would planning ok such a thing without doing their homework?
Once this land has been changed from agriculture it could be changed down the road. There probably is another intention of use for the property down the road…..
And for Stolz to say that the aquifer and lagoon/septic systems have nothing to do with land use? What the?
Gus brought up the Haldi Road Fiasco. There were only to be 40 people in that proposal 24/7 and 30 were called “residents” for the 3 months they are in there.
Funny how with a “campground” a person can stay for 250 consecutive days and be called a camper?
According to some of our various provincial laws if one person stays in another province for more than a month they are classified as permanent residents of that province.
Oh, and don’t forget ICBC how they are with car insurance….
“…soil conditions in that part of the city…?” Seeing as how I live west of town, unless the 10,000 year ago glacier took a sharp right turn while receeding, I suspect it is clay also. Hey! I’m an engineer! Gimme a shovel, and a corner office with a window and call me a soil engineer!
Harbinger, I remember a time when the city & Regional District would not pass anything without a perk test along with the application.
…perk test…? My goodness! With just a grade four education and an explanation, I suspect Bears Paw subdivision would be still scrub timber. IMO. Percolating should just be left for Tim’s. Right?
Funny how with a “campground” a person can stay for 250 consecutive days and be called a camper?
Actually it should read 25 consecutive days. That would make sense.
If Green wasn’t off touring would the result have been different? Maybe these councilors should get a pamphlet on what land use really means, and while they are at it give them one on what an OCP is…
PrinceGeorge wrote: “Funny how with a “campground” a person can stay for 250 consecutive days and be called a camper?”
That is actually not what the submission from planning said. It was L&M’s wrong interpretation which generated that interpretation.
====================================
From the application, the following definition is provided from the City Zoning Bylaw:
Campground: land which has been planned, improved, or occupied for the seasonal short term use of tents, and camper vehicles, and is not used as year round storage or accommodation for residential use for a period exceeding 240 days in a calendar year. Typical uses include tourist trailer parks, campsites, and tenting grounds. This use may include accessory facilities for eating and assembly purposes, washrooms and bathing facilities, entrance kiosk, minor indoor and outdoor recreation, spectator and patron participation entertainment, and convenience retail with a maximum gross floor area of 100 m2.
The letter from L&M includes the following sentence:
âFor comparison purposes the Ministry of Transportation requested that the rates for a Mobile Home Park (ITE Code 240) also be examined as the ZONING allows for stays up to 250 consecutive nights.â
L&M has the wrong number for the period of use.
In addition, they have replaced the word âuseâ with âstaysâ and introduced the word âconsecutiveâ, all of which alters the meaning of the zoning definition.
No wonder the media and others have a problem with what this whole thing is about.
Finally, with respect to access to water and sewage facilities, the submission by L&M includes drawings that show a development with the following:
1.Caretakerâs office
2.âpossibleâ sani-station
3.Two separate washroom/shower locations
[url]http://princegeorge.ca/cityhall/mayorcouncil/councilagendasminutes/agendas/2013/2013_11_04/documents/BL8544_rpt_MERGED.pdf[url]
http://princegeorge.ca/cityhall/mayorcouncil/councilagendasminutes/agendas/2013/2013_11_04/documents/BL8544_rpt_MERGED.pdf
Slinky wrote: “If Green wasn’t off touring would the result have been different?”
If she had voted in favour, it would have been a tie vote and the motion would have been defeated – the outcome would have been the same.
The problem is that I think Everett was no longer in attendance by phone at that time. Not sure when he left the phone.
It would have taken his vote to approve the application plus the mayor’s vote to approve the application.
=========================================
“Councillors Cameron Stolz, Garth Frizzell and Dave Wilbur supported the plan”
I am really starting to get concerned about Wilbur and Frizzell’s understanding of why these applications are in front of Council and what the relationship between outside agencies such as Northern Health and the City should be and the authority that the City has with such approvals and the information quality standards that applicants should be bound by.
Luckily there are some others who have a better understanding of that.
Of course, this will go down as another indicator of how difficult it is to do business in this City.
Developers and even engineers need to have some better training to understand what is required for such submissions. Even the City’s own planning department could use some. In this case that includes reading the whole submission and not allowing information discrepancies between the Planning department’s report and the applicant’s report without getting it corrected first, or drawing attention to the discrepancy and explaining which is the correct information.
gus: “Of course, this will go down as another indicator of how difficult it is to do business in this City.”
I couldn’t agree more.
Somewhat off topic:
People keep commenting on the free RV parking in town. I would never, ever use those. I can’t imagine ever “camping” at a Walmart. We can’t be the only ones, right?
When we hook up our trailer, and pull it out of town, we are looking to get away from it all. Trees! Water! We stay at campgrounds, and RV parks. We mostly camp, but if going to a city, to be tourists, we stay at an RV park. If using an RV park, we look for something near, but not on the highway.
Again, why stay at Walmart? What is the attraction? After spending so much on your RV, why not put out the $20 on a site?
How about overnight free parking News2me?
People aren’t actually camping there News2me. They are passing through town.
I get that they aren’t camping, and just passing through. However, isn’t it nicer, better, to go to a RV park, hook up to some electricity, recharge the generators, get some water, utilize the Wifi etc.?
If you can afford the RV, insurance, gas and so on, can’t you afford the rates at a site?
Some to the rigs at the Walmart are really nice and so expensive. Why cheap out on parking fees?
“I get that they aren’t camping, and just passing through. However, isn’t it nicer, better, to go to a RV park, hook up to some electricity, recharge the generators, get some water, utilize the Wifi etc.?
If you can afford the RV, insurance, gas and so on, can’t you afford the rates at a site? “
It’s not about the money or being ‘cheap’. Many people don’t need the hookups and maybe just want to grab a few groceries on the way through town.
Some people do want the ammenities of an RV park. Everybody has different needs.
Comments for this article are closed.