Another Night, and Still No Decision on Otway
Prince George, B.C.- “Sorry folks, it looks like it’s going to be another long night” those words from Prince George Mayor Lyn Hall as he called for a brief recess of the public hearing having heard 2 hours of presentations from just 5 presenters.
The matter at hand is the rezoning of a piece of property on Otway Road to allow for industrial use. With the number of people waiting to address Council it was clear this public hearing was not going to be completed within the allotted time.
The Council Chamber Gallery was again full, and another half dozen people were seated in the overflow room. Many wanting to make a presentation, or to hear what Council would decide.
Those in opposition to the change to the Official Community Plan and a rezoning reiterated much of the case that was made during the first session of public hearing held on April 11th. That hearing went four hours before Mayor Hall called for the hearing to be adjourned until May 9th as there were still 14 people waiting in line to speak either in support of or opposition to the proposal.
Those against the proposal cited concerns the machining and fabricating operation would create noise pollution, pose a threat to groundwater and create light pollution.
Those who support the proposal noted there has never been a noise complaint against either of the two companies asking for the rezoning and the danger to the aquifer is no more an issue from the companies than it is from the septic fields on the residential properties on the opposite side of the river.
At 10:00 pm, Council still had 14 people who wanted to address the matter and voted in favour of extending the hearing until 11 p.m. but it was clear that even if all 14 had made their presentation within that time, there would be no time for Council to debate the issue.
“We’re going to another night, it’s like a third overtime” said Councillor Brian Skakun
Councillor Frank Everitt was the lone dissenter on the vote that extended the meeting to 11 and then Council voted to reconvene on May 11th at 6 pm.
“This is important” said Mayor Lyn Hall, “This is one of the biggest public hearings this Council has dealt with, and certainly the biggest during the Council I sat on before, so it’s important we get it right.”
So it’s back to Council Chambers on Wednesday night at 6 p.m.
Comments
Some of the presenters reiterated comments from the previous hearing date but there was new information brought forward as well.
One of the (opposing) presenters raised the issue of the City’s Official Community Plan (OCP). The 2015 OCP completely overturns the decision in an earlier OCP regarding the subject property and other property in that area. The earlier OCP (2004 I think?) stated that the subject property and other property in this area should NOT be made industrial. The long term vision for property in this area was to maintain it as rural / rural resource. There are many other areas around PG that are already zoned light industrial. The presenter urged Council to consider the overall long-term vision for the City.
This nicely mirrored another presenter’s comments, where she talked about relocating to PG from the lower mainland. That people who do so are seeking out more affordable housing, but also homes with large lots and proximity to nature. That developing industrial property so close to residential areas is not desirable for current or future residents.
A third presenter cited precedents set by other cities with large riverfront areas (e.g. Edmonton) who have seen the value of those areas and consciously planned to have these lands designated as parks or riverfront trail systems.
One of the above presenters is a geotechnical professional, another is a professor in outdoor recreation and tourism management. Both of these people have subject matter expertise in the area of land use.
A fourth presenter refuted assertions at the previous hearing regarding proximity of the subject property to residential property. Contrary to statements at the earlier hearing, this presenter’s Cranbrook Hill property actually borders on the subject property. He and his family will be greatly impacted by this development.
There has been a lot of conflicting information brought forward. I hope that Council’s debate will include a search for and discussion of the actual facts and consideration of exactly why there was a 180 degree turn from one OCP version to the next. It is my understanding that a rezoning application was made for this specific property years ago and was denied. It makes no sense why this is now coming forward again with support from City administration.
3 debate sessions! No matter what side of this issue that a person resides upon, this shows Council that the public wants to be involved. It also shows an ongoing need for adequate future planning and a clear OCP that should have input from all sides.
It is nice to know that so many are indeed passionate about Prince George. Our City will continue to grow, let us all be heard for the issues of the future.
We are lucky to live in a democratic society and have the benefit of choice and free speach. A person can have an opinion and be heard, there are many in the world who dont have that luxury.
Depending on what planning recommends is usually what council goes with, sad but true – presenters have great arguments but for naught.
The OCP should not be changed on a whim, there is a mandatory review of the OCP and that is when it should be changed if need be not every 3 to 6 months.
People plan their lives on what an area they desire to live in has to offer, and for council and planning to change that every time an application comes forth for rezoning is just rediculous. Rezone within the confines of the OCP or bring forth reasons why we need an industrial or commercial zone here and there during the OCP review
The Haldi people were one of the first neighbourhoods that really fought city hall in more ways than one. I believe they are the ones that started to wake some of the people in this town up in regards to the OCP.
As the Haldi people stated “Neighbourhoods Matter” but unless it is in your “neighbourhood” most don’t give a damn. All the years that the Haldi neighbourhood fought at City Hall it fell on deaf ears right up until the last change to the OCP last month.
This ruddy planning dept. needs to change in more ways than one. I have been involved with more than just a couple fights to the changes of the OCP in residential areas. And I can tell you by experience if the planning dept recommends it – it gets passed by council.
The council then says it is a good process when people can be hear. That’s it. You are just heard. So good luck people, you are having your voices heard. but it will not change a thing with how our system works.
The OCP was government mandated many years ago and will and can and has been changes with 99.9% of the applications.
And was not the first lawsuit over the Haldi Road rezoning because the planning department actually made a mistake using urban instead of rural sections of the OCP in its decision to support the project? Think that is why the judge overturned the original zoning if I remember right.
“This is important” said Mayor Lyn Hall, “This is one of the biggest public hearings this Council has dealt with, and certainly the biggest during the Council I sat on before, so it’s important we get it right.”
Really? Pretty sure the Haldi Road fiasco was just as big, but city hall limited speakers to 5 minutes max. Pretty sure you were involved in that one too.
When one looks at web sites of consulting firms working in similar areas of expertise as some of the staff at City Hall one typically can read the history of the firm, the services the firm can provide, a sampling of the projects the firm has worked on, and the background of the senior and chief technical/professional staff in the firm.
Very few municipal governments have such summary staff CVs available.
Since we, the taxpayers, elect Council members and indirectly employ the City workers, it would seem to be a reasonable expectation that we know something about those people who manage the business of the City and make decisions about projects and budgets as well as recommendations to Council for those decisions which have to be made by the governance body.
Here is an example from a planning consultant firm:
John Doe is a professional planner with over 30 years of successful experience undertaking a wide range of community planning projects and development approvals. This experience includes work as a public sector planner as well as a planning and land development consultant. John Doe has a strong background in: urban planning, land development / development approvals, project management, impact assessment and public consultation.
John Doe has been a Registered Planner with the Canadian Institute of Planners since 1980 and has been a principal with the John Doe Consulting Group since 19XX. In 20XX, he received the Award for Planning Excellence from the Planning Institute of BC. Prior to his consulting work, John Doe served as the City Planner for City of YY for over 3 years and the Director of Development Services for the City of XX for over 12 years. He also served two terms as a School Trustee including one term as chair of the Board of Education in XX.
Unless people can be found on sites such as LinkedIn, one has very little knowledge of the backgrounds of those who work on our behalf. I do not think that is conducive to a good working relationship with the community.
Here is an excellent example of a planning and design firm
fotenn.com/projects/team-2-urban-planners
Comments for this article are closed.