SUSAN McIVER, Special to The Penticton Herald Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Questionable procedure resulted in a split vote on expansion of urban growth areas and confusion following the mayor‘s gloomy assessment of current conditions in Summerland. Monday council considered a two part bylaw which had been amended after receiving first reading on Sept. 29 and being presented at a public hearing on Oct. 15. Council unanimously passed the first part which had been amended to delete all references to the original bylaw with regard to changing the portions of the official community plan that limit the authority of councils to amend the document. The amendment also required that the issue be referred back to the Advisory Planning Commission for additional public consultation.
Coun. Sam Elia then moved that second reading be given to the second portion of the bylaw to include Rattlesnake Mountain in the urban growth area of the OCP “This will give time to get feedback from the APC regarding text amendments,” Elia said. The motion was defeated by a vote of 1-5. Subsequently, in a 5-1 vote, council approved a motion to read the second portion of the bylaw for second and third times and to adopt it.
Coun. Jim Kyluik was absent due to a conflict of interest. Coun. Ken Roberge opposed the motion made by Coun. Bruce Hallquist. “It really confused the issue by having two distinct OCP changes within the same bylaw. I think we made a significant error in bringing the two items forward together. The two parts should have been totally divorced,” Roberge said in a subsequent telephone interview. In explaining why he did not state his reasons for casting a negative vote at council, Roberge said, “I had repeated discussions with my colleagues on this point. I was tired of it.”
Many of the approximate 200 people who attended the council meeting were shaking their heads and wondering exactly what had happened. “I found the whole procedure tonight very confusing. I was under the impression that they (council) wanted to give the appearance of considering things more thoroughly but in the end decided why bother because we‘re not going to change our minds anyway,” said resident Khati Hendry. “The council is saying that the OCP has absolutely no bearing on whether or not Rattlesnake Mountain comes into the urban growth area,” resident Peter Waterman said.
Before any motion had been placed on the table, the director of planning services, council members and the mayor presented information and opinions in support of the amended bylaw. Mayor Janice Perrino responded to questions about why the issue was being considered so quickly by saying that “every land owner has the right to apply to the local government to amend the OCP and it must be considered in a timely manner”. In two months the bylaw which marks a significant change in direction for the community went from initial presentation to council to adoption. “Such a development will not help lower taxes, but it will help to share the load to get the project done,” Mayor Janice Perrino said. She did not provide information on what the tax burden would be if such a project was never undertaken compared to ’helping to share the load‘.
Perrino emphasized Summerland‘s low rate of growth of 1 per cent from 2001 to 2006 as compared to 4 per cent for Penticton and 10.6 per cent for Osoyoos. Spinoffs include declining school enrolment and struggling businesses.
“There are 14 businesses for sale in downtown core right now,” she said. Adding to the gloom, Perrino announced that the developer of the Wharton Street redevelopment project had requested an extension of one year on their option to purchase municipal land. This is the second year in a row such an extension has been requested. The Wharton Street project like two current large downtown developments is a mixture of multifamily and commercial units.
Providing young families with a wide selection of single family dwellings can help improve Summerland‘s economic situation, according to Perrino.
Strong points for including Rattlesnake Mountain in the urban growth area include that it is not within the ALR, is located within the municipal boundaries and is close to the town core and highway. “There is a long time between initial consideration of a development by council and start of construction,” Perrino said. Many reports and steps must be completed before the first spade full of soil is turned. These include environmental, geotechnical and engineering reports, an extensive neighbourhood plan and finally completion of servicing agreements. In support of the Rattlesnake Mountain application, Ian McIntosh, manager of planning services, presented information from the master servicing plans. “This information addresses projected community needs while ignoring the most important part of the plans--the list of capital projects. To change these now would entail significant costs,” Gregory said. McIntosh gave assurance that “if projections are correct” Summerland had enough water for many years based on an annual compounded growth rate of two per cent. Trout Creek resident Marilyn Hansen questioned the validity of projections based on past years in view of global warming. “We may need to supply water to the high growth areas of the valley. We should be looking at the valley as one watershed, not just at Summerland,” said local orchardist Denise MacDonald.
No comments:
Post a Comment