 |
| Resident Robert Strand speaking at Tuesday's City Council Public Hearing |
The turnout wasn't large, but those who did attend Tuesday's Public Hearing into proposed changes to downtown height allowances did have some concerns to share with City Council members.
Audio issues plagued the video overview of the Hearing, which at times made it difficult to get the full sense of what the participants had to say, with the commentary at times not audible at all.
That was particularly difficult after an exchange between the first participant Robert Strand and City Manager Rob Buchan, who had counselled those in the chamber that the forum was not one for a debate and was designed as an opportunity for the public to express their views on the topic at hand.
From what audio was available, it appeared that Mr. Strand's major focus was to note of how the current bylaw was put in place following the Highliner Inn development a project that had created a significant impact on views of the harbour area. He expressed his disappointment that a bylaw that has been in place for thirty years could be changed.
"So I'm opposed to any change that allow anybody to go four, five six stories in the downtown area, I don't think it's necessary .. it would affect many people.
I'm really disappointed that a bylaw is put in place and thirty years later you can change it, why was it put in place in the first place? It wasn't put in place to be changed that anybody is aware of"
The audio for the second participant, former Prince Rupert Mayor Jack Mussallem was not available at all for the entire presentation, though Mr. Mussallem had indicated support for the previous speakers position during the first presentation and the video presentation seemed to indicate that some points of note to the topic were being delivered to the council members.
Considering his vast experience both as an elected official and former senior city staffer, some of his commentary would have been of some value for the audience at home to hear, offering perhaps a glimpse into the reasoning behind the existing bylaw process in place.
Corporate Administrator Rosa Miller also advised council members of a letter for their consideration from a third member of the public Sandra Jones, though no details of the contents were included as part of the Video presentation record.
With Mayor Pond's participation by remote means on the night, Councillor Skelton-Morven was serving as Chair for the session. He then called for any other participants, and with none coming forward, the Public Hearing was adjourned just ahead of the fifteen minute mark.
City Manager Buchan offered up an explanation of what staff had been looking to achieve with the proposal, noting how the change would be to simplify the process, noting that there was still a place for public participation for those proposals that did have any view obstructions.
He highlighted how it was more towards those buildings of three to four stories and not larger structures such as the Highliner Inn. Noting how any change was purely discretional on council's part.
Councillor Nick Adey reviewed some of the areas of discussion heard in the public hearing process and spoke to the concerns of the participants towards another Highlighter style development, asking what opportunities would be available for the expression of public concern in the current circumstance and how it may change with the new policy.
"I just want to reflect that you know fairly clearly when we invited public comment we heard that there were concerns and I appreciate the concerns and I defend the right of the public to use this forum to express those concerns.
My own worry is ... let's take a hypothetical example, somebody wants to build a building on the scale of the Highliner, which is you know clearly a sore point with some people.
Under the current circumstances what is the process where by somebody could pursue that application and what degree of public input would be allowed in that process.
And then compare that under the proposed changes, what would be the process and what would be the opportunity for public expression of concerns" -- Councillor Nick Adey
City Manager Rob Buchan noted that in effect, the proposal is to create a policy to reduce the number of bylaw amendments, from two to just one, the zoning bylaw amendment. He observed of the guidance in the policy that Council would have to rationalize that there is not significant view obstruction with a proposal.
He further noted, that the Zoning bylaw would likely require a public hearing and staff would likely recommended one, but that it was possible that one could be done without a hearing and simply by public notification.
"The guidance in the policy is such that Council would need to rationalize that there is not significant view obstruction with the proposal.
So, in both cases there's a public process, the Zoning bylaw would likely require a public hearing and we would likely recommend a public hearing, because of the language in the Official Community Plan.
But it would be technically possible to do it without a public hearing and simply public notification" -- City Manager Robert Buchan
From that Councillor Adey observed that the possibility of the whims of a future council going ahead without protecting the public process and ability of the public to chime in was something he would oppose, noting of the concerns of the public that they not lose that ability to comment.
"I guess if I can stand in the shoes of the people who are expressing the concern, I think that anything that exposes the possibility of you know the whims of a future council simply choosing to go ahead and make decisions without protecting that public process, that ability for the public to chime in.
I would be opposed to creating anything that allows for that discretion.
If we can defend the public input part of the process, by not supporting the proposed change then I think we're doing a good thing.
Because I think that's what people worry about is that at some point they'll have thrown away their ability to actually impact a decision that they're concern about" -- Councillor Nick Adey
In his reply Mr. Buchan stressed that the main focus was to streamline the process and reduce the number bylaws that would be required, while holding to the process of a public hearing. Her further noted that with public concern the council could of course keep to the current process.
"There would be public process, opened meeting process in both cases, contemplate public hearing in both cases and certainly would recommend public hearing in both cases. The question is whether it would be one or two bylaws that would be changed.
This is certainly a Council prerogative in how it wants to present development opportunities in the town and the public processes that go with them. We don't have a strong position on this, we were trying to introduce some streamlining of process, not eliminating process, but some streamlining of process.
In considering a situation where you know buildings in the one to two storey area might go three to four storeys, having said that if public concern the Council can certainly go keep it as it is" -- City Manager Robert Buchan
Councillor Randhawa shared some of his concerns related to the proposed changes stating he wold rather keep the current process.
Councillor Cunningham again spoke of the need for more transparency, how the council was there to protect the public interest, noting how using the current process would reflect that.
"Where it's one or two, it's irrelevant, I think the more transparency we have in any public forum is good. We're here to protect the public's interest and I think leaving it the way it is, gives them more protection than not.
If we go down the road, worst case scenario, we get a very pro development council they can make a decision that is public notification, not a public hearing and I think it's very important that we have the transparency in anything like this.
One of the strongest points living in Prince Rupert is the natural beauty of our harbour and anything that obstructs that natural beauty to me is not something we should mess with, that's just the way I feel about it.
I think it protects the public interest just to leave it the way it is and not to mess with it at all" -- Councillor Barry Cunningham
Councillor Niesh observed as to how he had changed his mind in the period of time of the debate, noting that how this council is all about public hearings and ensuring that the public has its says. He too suggested that Council leave it as it currently is in place.
The City Manager offered a compromise to the issue, noting how the proposal could be amended to include the use of a Public Hearing towards the Zoning bylaw requirement.
Councillor Cunningham observed that he wanted to ensure that in no way with the new wording that anyone could go more than two or three stories without a public hearing.
Mayor Pond then offered up some thoughts on the topic, noting of the existing framework and the range of height options in various areas of the city.
To those comments Councillor Adey asked towards the scope of public option for consultation on increased height requests, in those areas outside of the downtown core.
The Planning manager offered up some clarification on those areas of note outside of the downtown core.
Council adopted the revised amendment from the City Manager towards how they will approach height issues in the downtown core region.
The vote however was not unanimous endorsement and provided for a four to three split in favour, with Mayor Pond voting in favour of the motion to break the tie.
The full conversation can be reviewed through the city's Video archive starting at the 40 minute mark.
More items of note from Monday's Council Session can be reviewed through our Council Timeline Feature.
Past items of note on planning themes can be explored here.
Cross posted from the North Coast Review.
No comments:
Post a Comment