The following is quoted from page A3 of today's North Shore News:
Regarding the Apartment propsal for a 14-unit Capilano Road plan, we have problems with the process of densification. Councillor Lisa Muri said, "There has not been a neighbourhood-wide re-engagement. There has been no consultation process since we defeated this prior to the election."
Coun. Doug MacKay-Dunn said the lack of further consultation, coupled with staff's premature hearing notice was enough for him to vote against proceeding.
"We messed up," he said. "No public hearing."
[Mayor] Walton joined Bassam, Nixon, Hicks and Little in support of holding the public hearing, which was scheduled for June 23, after this paper's deadline.
Where is the adherance to democratic process?
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Again...a breach of process by the District of North Vancouver
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
23 opinions/comments:
What specifically was the breach of process? Public Hearing notification was done too early?
Sounds like the system worked OK to me....
Lisa is the best!
Coun. Lisa Muri was the only one who stood up for democracy.
That's not democracy. That's a NIMBY councilor having yet another tantrum on the public dime. A public hearing was held, the developer followed the proper process. Where's the problem?
If there has been any question about "public consultation" or "re-engagement" on this proposal then I am glad someone on DNV council raised a red flag. Kudos to Lisa.
I don't get this posting. Can someone please explain exactly what the problem was?
I don't get it either. A public hearing was announced, so what's the big deal?
What the problem was that the proponent's original proposal got turned down at the public hearing stage last year and Council told him to meet with the community before he came back, the proponent made some tweaks but did NOT meet with the community and came back anyhow a year later.
Now holding a public hearing is not an inexpensive process for the District so they tend to prefer NOT to go to public hearing other than when they think a proposal will get public support.
I wasn't at the public hearing but I >WAS< at the meeting of Council where they voted to go to public hearing and I didn't hear anything like a consensus for the project - just the opposite if anything.
I do not know why the mayor let 4 people from the proponent's family speak but that's what happened. Not counting the proponent's family members I'd say public response was about 65-35 against that night.
"Breach of process" is strong language and while I'm with those who do NOT think it should have been allowed to go to public hearing, describing what happened as a "breach of process" (which in my opinion I've seen before) is a bit of hyperbole here.
Another tempest in a teapot down at DNV Council chambers. Somewhere somehow, people have to live, and if we can find pockets where higher densities and multiple family projects can work with minimal disruption and inconvenience to others, what's the problem? Eventually we are all going to have to accept compromises (I know I have), unless of course we are independently wealthy, and can afford to buy ourselves an island between here and Vancouver Island. Get off your soapbox, folks. How long - really - how long do you expect to live in your current homes? The ones who buy from you won't care one whit if there is a townhouse complex next door - they will be overjoyed at the prospect of living on the North Shore. Really!
Lyle,
If the facts are as you say they are (and I for one don't doubt you), why wouldn't this ****up be best described as a breach of process? What else could it be?
Dennis Bevington
The process is that the property owner has a right to apply. Council has a right to send the proposal to public hearing, or not. In this case, the applicant paid their money for an application, Council sent it to public hearing, and the neighbours had their chance to speak on the proposal. At an upcoming meeting, Council will consider whether the bylaw proceeds past first reading. If the applicant wants to change the proposal and submit another application 6 weeks from now, the process allows them to. And Council can then decide whether that one goes to hearing. But no one is allowed to decline to receive an application just because some of the neighbours are unhappy.
It is apparent that some bloggers don't get it. I will repeat:
Regarding the Apartment propsal for a 14-unit Capilano Road plan, we have problems with the process of densification. Councillor Lisa Muri said, "There has not been a neighbourhood-wide re-engagement. There has been no consultation process since we defeated this prior to the election."
Coun. Doug MacKay-Dunn said the lack of further consultation, coupled with staff's premature hearing notice was enough for him to vote against proceeding.
"We messed up," he said. "No public hearing."
Kudos to Lisa and Doug.
Wendy
Wendy, you're the one who doesn't get it. The District dropped the ball, not the developer. The developer did as he was required. The District wanted more, but didn't follow up. You show a fundamental lack of understanding of the process and merely react negatively to any sort of new development regardless of its virtues. You are the epitome of a NIMBY. That is not a compliment.
Anon 7:41
Can you read? I know the DNV dropped the ball, not the developer!!
Check out the Heading: A Breach of Process by the District of North Vancouver,"
What planet do you live on?
And by the way, the correct spelling is "complement."
Wendy, no! Complement was not the word I was wanting! What planet do you live on? Your reading comprehension is now in question!
According to Websters:
compliment
1 a: an expression of esteem, respect, affection, or admiration ; especially : an admiring remark b: formal and respectful recognition : honor
2plural : best wishes : regards
Complement means something entirely different! Weren't you an English teacher or some such thing?
comple·ment
Pronunciation: \ˈkäm-plə-mənt\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin complementum, from complēre to fill up, complete, from com- + plēre to fill — more at full
Date: 14th century
1 a: something that fills up, completes, or makes perfect b: the quantity, number, or assortment required to make a thing complete ; especially : the whole force or personnel of a ship c: one of two mutually completing parts : counterpart
2 a: the angle or arc that when added to a given angle or arc equals a right angle in measure b: the set of all elements that do not belong to a given set and are contained in a particular mathematical set containing the given set c: a number that when added to another number of the same sign yields zero if the significant digit farthest to the left is discarded —used especially in assembly language programming
3: the musical interval required with a given interval to complete the octave
4: an added word or expression by which a predication is made complete (as president in “they elected him president” and beautiful in “he thought her beautiful”)
5: the thermolabile group of proteins in normal blood serum and plasma that in combination with antibodies causes the destruction especially of particulate antigens (as bacteria and foreign blood corpuscles)
DNV Council simply got caught, and then said, "Oops!" Council wishes the people would just shut up and stop complaining! If you don't believe that, you are just being naive.
No, they didn't get caught.
The developer rather foolishly brought forward an application without reaching some consensus in the neighbourhood - but that IS the developer's choice.
None of staff, Council, or the public have the opportunity to deny a property owner the right to apply. And holding a public hearing would be considered by most to be one of the more formal opportunities for the public to share their views - that is what happened in this case.
Now we wait and see what Council will do with the proposal at an upcoming meeting and whether the complaints of the neighbours will carry the day.
The last anon made an excellent summary of the points.
Personally I fault the Mayor in letting the applicant's entire family speak at the Council meeting that sent things to public hearing but that's small fish.
I look forward to seeing what Council has to say on this one as well.
"Personally I fault the Mayor in letting the applicant's entire family speak at the Council meeting"
Local Government Act 890(3) At the public hearing all persons who believe that their interest in property is affected by the proposed bylaw must be afforded a reasonable opportunity to be heard or to present written submissions respecting matters contained in the bylaw that is the subject of the hearing.
If the Mayor had restricted their speaking time because they were family members, he would have broken the law. It wasn't an advisable tactic, but they certainly had the legal right to do it, and the Mayor had no right to stop them.
Anonymous said...
NVD just went through a very expensive and exhausting process with the Cap. Suspension Bridge because of an "Advertising Error". Here again the date of the Public Meeting is advertised before the Council had authorized staff to proceed. This is the issue, which was raised by the folks in the neighborhood. It is very important that the process is objective and seen to be objective.
In addition, the "Facilitated Public Information Meeting process was introduced by Al Nixon and supported by Lisa Muri-good for them. However, Al Nixon suddenly was being selective in its application and that was Lisa's point.
Finally, the applicant is an old friend of Don Bell. Don arranged for many of his campaign team to show up in support of the applicant.
As the homeowners about to be stranded as the last (now devalued) single family on this block we would like to add our comments.
Prior to the prematurely advertised Public Hearing on the development at 2832/40 Capilano Road, we conducted a survey of 54 residents within a one block - 100% were opposed to this 14 unit apartment building. Well over ½ (57%) of the same residents were not opposed to other forms of multi-family dwellings such as townhomes or a multi-plex arrangement which should speak volumes on the non-nimbyness of our neighbourhood.
Over the past 3 years, against the neighbourhood’s will, our NV District planning staff vigorously supported this 14 unit apartment building. So extreme was the support that one planner actually advised* the applicant to purchase a 2nd single family lot “for viability” - a possible conflict of interest considering the potential for lawsuit by the applicant versus the district should zoning not be approved. (*See Staff Report of May 31st, paragraph 1, under “Background”.)
Mayor Walton, councillors Little, Hicks, and Bassam ignored democracy, the voters, and the OCP on July 6th and passed the bylaws for this 14 unit apartment. Muri, Nixon and MacKay-Dunn represented their voters. Muri indicated in 13 years she had never seen a project with so many issues be pushed through by staff with such haste. Nixon nobly chose to honour the people who created the OCP, and MacKay-Dunn expressed major concern over the increased entry and egress on the very fast and dangerous Capilano Road. Each of them has my continued vote. The others bowed to the developer of an unwanted project owned by non-residents (the owner resides on secluded Sunshine Coast beachfront) who is about to became a whole lot richer.
The proposed lots were never identified under the current OCP as future multi-family designated. The DNV, therefore has performed a major disservice to ourselves, our neighbours and all DNV residents by providing staff support and majority council approval to a development that will harm the direct neighbours. Additionally it will potentially serve as a model for how to successfully process future developments in other neighbourhoods, without compensation for losses to affected neighbours, without public support, regardless of the people's OCP. Why even hold public hearings?
North Vancouver District Planning staff is now spearheading a new Official Community Plan and asking all of us to become involved and spend more countless hours to produce a new document to ignore.
Post a Comment