Comments from the Public Consultation on the
Urban Containment Boundary Amendment to the OCP
Ql. Remove the requirement that partnering municipalities and the Regional District consent to increase the amount urban development in areas outside of areas currently intended for urban development. The Town would have autonomy over land use decisions for land within the Town that is not in the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR).
Q1— BENEFITS
A GCB change may help speed up a project than can enhance a town The only beneficiaries would be developers, Councillors, Pheasant Glen Cannot see any benefit at this time and am opposed to any boundary change None Why wouldn't the Town decide for the Town. The Town knows the Town best, and should make the Town decisions; It would allow the Town to stimulate the economy in ways they see fit; React dynamically to world/local changes. No Benefits Few!! Don't see the benefits here. Developers, Councillors Administratively simple and enhances the Town's autonomy; Practically, we are not speaking of much new land being added as potentially developable Town should take complete responsibility for land use within its boundaries; Reduce cost/bureaucracy Potential to connect Eaglecrest community with North Qualicum Why does Council want to increase urban development in Qualicum Beach. Should this not be a community decision? More encouragement to Councils' favourite developers to benefit at taxpayers' expense Other areas don't control TQB decisions on Growth; TQB has control over land use decisions within the Town's boundaries NONE Yes — lets simplify the process; Better coordination of services; No need for Regional consultations of land use within municipal boundaries With the old method we have a beautiful village with no big debt; why change now? Council could make changes based more on their own bias — therefore it would facilitate their fast decision and benefit a developer — not really a 'benefit' but a negative Removes other levels of government from land use decisions in QB Faster permits; more control over areas within boundaries; more say in developments?
Quicker permits; more control over areas within boundary, more say on how these areas are developed Only the developer and not the tax payers! We have been ignored by 3 members of Council and 1 newspaper person. If they resigned now our community would obviously benefit from a balanced approach! There has to be a structure to impeach people who represent only 1 group i.e. developers Will benefit developers
None at this time May reduce coordination burden with neighbouring municipalities; may allow better reaction if market changes; Town should plan long ahead for its containment boundary
1— DRAWBACKS Council only accountability is at the next elections
A layer of oversite is lost if the push is on for some major project or development 3 Councillors only make these crucial decisions, restricting input from residents RDN no longer has a voice in this area; urban sprawl Over development of beach from property. How would you control density and protect the environment and wildlife
This is a "profound" change in the words of Paul Thorkelson CAO of the RDN at a public meeting here last November. I think the fact that one Council with 5 members can overturn the wishes of the Town expressed in the OCP process is not a good way to proceed Make sure the commercial heart/core isn't lost
Must consider consequences of growth (e.g. cost of infrastructure such as transportation, public services, etc.); Frightening that a small number of Town Councillors can make decisions outside OCP process Political agenda; Economic inputs to Town Decided by 3 or 4 Councillors; Little or no input to residents; Insufficient notification of information meetings
Removes the check on growth that the RDN criteria compels I don't want the Town to have complete autonomy over all land use decisions. I believe having a a2nd level of government to apply to when/if local gov. (5 people) makes decisions not to the benefit of all of Qualicum Beach citizens; checks & balances are important None There is potential for urban development to a high density very adjacent to a rural area. eg. south side of Rupert Road; We do not want high density development adjacent to Milner Gardens; having high density development surrounded by ALR land does not make sense Rural land becomes vulnerable; removes protection for rural land; potential for urban sprawl; not in agreement with Regional Growth Strategy; Encroachment on ALR land; Likely create leap frog development; undermines compact community; encourage development of rural property No definition of areas of high density limits/low density area in outside growth containment boundary. Is Council waiting for developer input Need checks and balances; Cost of growth; RDN is source of sober second opinion; Select, self-serving Council can do irreparable future damage; This is exclusively pro-growth We must keep an eye on the successes of "village" life — why most of us moved here Removes a level of "second thought" (RDN; Not fully discussed as part of a general OCP review; piece- meal change; puts too much power in the hands of a very small Council Removes "sober second thought" from land use decisions Increase in developed area; increased taxes for those coming into expanded area additional development costs?; obligation of Town to service these areas. Potential footprint increase of developed area if areas are developed; increased property taxes? for those in new area; potential decreased density of built area — less efficient services, not as environmentally sustainable; does nothing to prevent development by private developers outside the Town boundaries; additional cost of development & servicing of developed area (which will increase all taxes)
The present structure should not be changed. Our community's decision will affect other communities living conditions. The RDN can give us a voice if we happen to have a Council or 3 or more who vote as a block on a consistent basis. There is no evidence that we can trust this Council to represent the taxpayers. They are obviously here to represent the developer There would only be a small group of people (Town Council) who are making a decision regarding land that would affect other people. The RDN should be involved to give a more balanced opinion Opens up areas to be developed willy-nilly by a Council that is hell bent to develop, develop, develop The Council will have too much power to override the wishes of the majority of residents. It will be easier for Council to amend zoning bylaw and approve more controversial developments. There are too many unfinished developments in Town already More expensive servicing; makes planning for types of development more difficult; takes Town planning out of hands of PLANNERS and puts it in hands of developers
Expanding the GCB to match the Town boundary would:
Q2. Decrease the length of time and procedural requirements to make a change to the OCP and zoning bylaws should the Town decide it wants to change its OCP with respect to land that is currently outside of the GCB.
Q2 — BENEFITS
No benefits to residents None. It's a negative to much control by 5 people. No "sober second thought'?" No full participation of the community None As long as there is sufficient public info & consultation things should proceed as quick as possible No benefits Little!!! Council only. Residents spent 2 years defining the last OCP and are now being put down after so much work
Streamlining the prospects of Council and the community to control development as they see fit Cost savings; Time savings; Town takes responsibility for what happens inside its boundaries To potential developers None
Yes by all means let's decrease the time for development processes. Hopefully that would encourage development (industrial, business) that would contribute to our future sustainability Wait until a new Council is elected Development can be fast tracked
Not sure Faster permitting Quicker permits We are not given sufficient time. As usual things are being rammed through. How do the '3' justify ignoring the vast majority of taxpayers??? None This means the Council, NOT the residents Helps to provide some certainty to property owners if they have bright ideas
Q2 — DRAWBACKS
Residents of this community are at the mercy of 3 ruthless Councillors who could not care less about the opinions of residents OCP can be changed to hastily lose compact quality — walkability OCP changes of this magnitude should be carefully considered with full participation of the community Reducing timeframes risks the possibility of "knee jerk" changes and neglecting consideration of the big picture
OCP belongs to the people. Changes should be by the people with defined timelines. Why not include votes on this subject in the municipal election This will empower Council (as current) that is very pro development to fast track OCP revisions in favour of new development in previously undeveloped areas.
[Decrease the legth of time and procedural requirements to make a change to the OCP] Perfect example of why we don't want this to happen is Pheasant Glen (formerly in the ALR — now may become urban sprawl with major housing development not in urban centre) Cherry picking, changing OCP to satisfy certain individuals is wrong
None Rush through does not permit the whole community to be involved Process for major land use changes needs chacks and balances. Process needs to allow community time to make well informed decisions about land use changes; Why does Council want to change land uses outside UCB? Major changes and decisions need more time for contemplation and analyzing the consequences. What is the purpose of a community OCP if Council can change it at its discretion. This is not a minor change to the OCP. It is a major change! There is a sense of fear by some residents that Council (now and future) would move to fast with the "flavor of the day" or influence by those with "deep pockets" Too hurried to make a decision of this magnitude. Please wait Possible too fast a change without full consideration of long range repercussions; Do we want a small number of people who would be the majority of Council to have so much power? NO Not sure Could fewer reviews result in something undesireable being developed? Fewer restrictions to undesirable development 3 members of Council vote as a block again and again; In my judgement and that of many others, the RDN will help us get a balanced and comprehensive study of the issues which is not forth coming of the present
Council What is the rush? This is a major decision that affects others. These decisions should be made with great care. The RDN would give more input The Town if it wants an OCP change should then go through a full OCP review; Citizens involved in planning long range can help in setting up an OCP that everyone agrees with. Right now Council is off side from the citizens in their Town The OCP should not be changed at all until decisions are made for the next OCP. If some important change is necessary, a referendum should be held whereby the citizens of the Town can participate in the decision- making NOTE: A Council of 5 people should not be allowed to overturn the wishes of the majority of the residents who've spent much time and effort involved in the OCP process Bad decisions are often made when insufficient time; Fundamentally don't approve decreasing the time! Long range planning solves all problem!! This was to be a public information meeting: We find it is to be OCP workshop
Q3. What other benefits do you see to the proposed change?
None Absolutely none None 0 Zero With the current social and economic climate the Town needs to be in control of its future. To adapt and adjust to maintain the quality of life in Qualicum Beach Town able to be the only level of government as oversight None It plays into the interest of the P-Glen development which will reinforce and exacerbate the polarization that currently exists in the community Only benefits developers A positive step towards facilitation of development of employment creating sustainable economy of TQB
None
None More negatives than positives None
Q4. What other drawbacks do you see to the proposed change?
COSTS — Leave it alone All developers requests seem to be rubber stamped. NO consideration for the residents. Can only make things worse here; opens up too many areas for subdivision type development eg. waterfront estates. Sustainability? Environment? Mere words. As it is there seems to be little oversight of building projects in Town, how will less or no involvement by RDN improve things? It misses the point of the Regional Growth Strategy to protect the environment, save us from urban sprawl, protect the taxpayer. We have seen instances of very bad development in this Town, now we can spread them around. Urban sprawl. It doesn't sound like it will have any negative impacts. The Town & Council have been doing a great job of
looking out for the Town's interest Proposed changes/revisions to the OCP constitute a minor amendment — do not agree — changes constitute a major amendment Having to supply sewer etc for any future approved development; slippery slope: would likely pressure to expand UCB Urban sprawl. Water problems — aquifers down this winter; Parking chaos within the Town — unless the school closure is designated for parking not hi-rises? The streamlined process plays to the interests of those who want to develop their property expediently — if the proposed developments are perceived by the community as un-wanted or as negatives — then expedited protocols will be felt as negative Urban sprawl; Ignoring OCPs — changing whenever Council wants to; too much power for Town of QB There will be pressure to provide sewer and water services to these new land areas once development potential is there Council is leading this change. 5 persons making the decision for whole community. Process is flawed — too rushed — actually a major amendment to the Regional Growth Strategy Listed on other side. This is a major amendment not a minor amendment I'm not fully clear on why we really need this change now Not enough time for thought as to what long-range impacts could happen in all the areas that could be affected
It is a bad idea unless you stand to benefit financially from this. With this Council it would involve opening the Town up to developers and not respecting the wishes of the citizens who pay the taxes that run this Town.
Q5. What other information would assist you in furthering your understanding of this topic?
None The truth Full OCP review at the proper time this proposal has too many implications to leave up to 1 meeting. Why do we agree to large subdivions only to have them change their plans — don't need anymore No other information required A map or summary of what could potentially change if this change took place. How many new homes, businesses, condos, etc. How full/empty is current UCB — do we still have room. If so, why push expansion? Presentation by UCB experts. Presentation by RDN personnel only — with no QB Town or Council present.
We need to understand this major change fully and completely How is this a "minor amendment" to the Regional Growth Strategy, by definition Present similar case examples please, including these that resulted in change and those where no changes were made. This might help us understand impacts to other communities Lawyers' opinion on the legality of a minor amendment versus major amendment None More information on possible infrastructure costs when development occurs in other areas The '3' has a moral responsibility to fully explain their reasons for this process. This information and the drawings should have been in both local newspapers and not on the back pages A full OCP review
Q6. Do you have any other comments?
Oh how the Town would benefit from the resignation of the three Councillors who vote as a block on any issue. Why is this being rushed through? Could this issue be voted on at the municipal election in November. OCPs are made by the people after a lot of hard work — like the RGS and should be respected — not ignored by 5 people on Council. Referendum if need to change?
The OCP has turned into a great comic joke. How about a referendum? One public meeting of less than 50 people is not sufficient! Is this an end run for Pheasant Glen? What about affordable housing? Lots of people are not present here for this only public hearing on March 4th. How about a referendum on this topic? This is taking up a lot of staff time, how about all the other business of the Town. This apparently came from the Council Strategic Plan, how was that developed?
Why should we participate in the next OCP? Does this matter, what happens if "Council" doesn't hear what they want to? There is a lot of emotion, and misunderstanding around this meaning develop doesn't need to go through the process
Planning must follow an open, transparent process that cannot be changed or compromised on an individual whim. OCP is like a swiss match, discussing UCB & GCB is only 1 piece. Worried about only discussing a narrow part of OCP. Needs to be a broader conversation.
We fully expect this to be pushed through with as much speed as the Clarion Development. Is this really the only info session available to residents. Why was the info. package only put on your website 24 hrs. prior? This is not a sufficient process to call an OCP review process A major change to OCP at this time would be redundant and costly
I am not happy with the communication process used to the community. I do not believe this is a minor amendment to the OCP It appears that Council does not agree with Regional Growth Strategy and its purpose. If Council feels the GCB is a hindrance or unfair or an obstacle to their autonomy then are they not supporting the Regional Growth Strategy It's time Council protected the interests of the taxpayer. Eg. desecration of land heritage development. Election! Election! Election! Undo rush to have OCP amended. What's the hurry?! Why go ahead with now or wait until the OCP in 2016? My general observation throughout comments made is that there was a deep feeling of distrust in the current Council and therefore wonder what the real agenda is Although it seems presented as a "minor" change, it is not. Stick with the Official Community Plan timeline. RDN has already allowed undesirable developments in areas just outside of municipal boundaries — how can we be involved in influencing these approvals?
Q1— BENEFITS
A GCB change may help speed up a project than can enhance a town The only beneficiaries would be developers, Councillors, Pheasant Glen Cannot see any benefit at this time and am opposed to any boundary change None Why wouldn't the Town decide for the Town. The Town knows the Town best, and should make the Town decisions; It would allow the Town to stimulate the economy in ways they see fit; React dynamically to world/local changes. No Benefits Few!! Don't see the benefits here. Developers, Councillors Administratively simple and enhances the Town's autonomy; Practically, we are not speaking of much new land being added as potentially developable Town should take complete responsibility for land use within its boundaries; Reduce cost/bureaucracy Potential to connect Eaglecrest community with North Qualicum Why does Council want to increase urban development in Qualicum Beach. Should this not be a community decision? More encouragement to Councils' favourite developers to benefit at taxpayers' expense Other areas don't control TQB decisions on Growth; TQB has control over land use decisions within the Town's boundaries NONE Yes — lets simplify the process; Better coordination of services; No need for Regional consultations of land use within municipal boundaries With the old method we have a beautiful village with no big debt; why change now? Council could make changes based more on their own bias — therefore it would facilitate their fast decision and benefit a developer — not really a 'benefit' but a negative Removes other levels of government from land use decisions in QB Faster permits; more control over areas within boundaries; more say in developments?
Quicker permits; more control over areas within boundary, more say on how these areas are developed Only the developer and not the tax payers! We have been ignored by 3 members of Council and 1 newspaper person. If they resigned now our community would obviously benefit from a balanced approach! There has to be a structure to impeach people who represent only 1 group i.e. developers Will benefit developers
None at this time May reduce coordination burden with neighbouring municipalities; may allow better reaction if market changes; Town should plan long ahead for its containment boundary
1— DRAWBACKS Council only accountability is at the next elections
A layer of oversite is lost if the push is on for some major project or development 3 Councillors only make these crucial decisions, restricting input from residents RDN no longer has a voice in this area; urban sprawl Over development of beach from property. How would you control density and protect the environment and wildlife
This is a "profound" change in the words of Paul Thorkelson CAO of the RDN at a public meeting here last November. I think the fact that one Council with 5 members can overturn the wishes of the Town expressed in the OCP process is not a good way to proceed Make sure the commercial heart/core isn't lost
Must consider consequences of growth (e.g. cost of infrastructure such as transportation, public services, etc.); Frightening that a small number of Town Councillors can make decisions outside OCP process Political agenda; Economic inputs to Town Decided by 3 or 4 Councillors; Little or no input to residents; Insufficient notification of information meetings
Removes the check on growth that the RDN criteria compels I don't want the Town to have complete autonomy over all land use decisions. I believe having a a2nd level of government to apply to when/if local gov. (5 people) makes decisions not to the benefit of all of Qualicum Beach citizens; checks & balances are important None There is potential for urban development to a high density very adjacent to a rural area. eg. south side of Rupert Road; We do not want high density development adjacent to Milner Gardens; having high density development surrounded by ALR land does not make sense Rural land becomes vulnerable; removes protection for rural land; potential for urban sprawl; not in agreement with Regional Growth Strategy; Encroachment on ALR land; Likely create leap frog development; undermines compact community; encourage development of rural property No definition of areas of high density limits/low density area in outside growth containment boundary. Is Council waiting for developer input Need checks and balances; Cost of growth; RDN is source of sober second opinion; Select, self-serving Council can do irreparable future damage; This is exclusively pro-growth We must keep an eye on the successes of "village" life — why most of us moved here Removes a level of "second thought" (RDN; Not fully discussed as part of a general OCP review; piece- meal change; puts too much power in the hands of a very small Council Removes "sober second thought" from land use decisions Increase in developed area; increased taxes for those coming into expanded area additional development costs?; obligation of Town to service these areas. Potential footprint increase of developed area if areas are developed; increased property taxes? for those in new area; potential decreased density of built area — less efficient services, not as environmentally sustainable; does nothing to prevent development by private developers outside the Town boundaries; additional cost of development & servicing of developed area (which will increase all taxes)
The present structure should not be changed. Our community's decision will affect other communities living conditions. The RDN can give us a voice if we happen to have a Council or 3 or more who vote as a block on a consistent basis. There is no evidence that we can trust this Council to represent the taxpayers. They are obviously here to represent the developer There would only be a small group of people (Town Council) who are making a decision regarding land that would affect other people. The RDN should be involved to give a more balanced opinion Opens up areas to be developed willy-nilly by a Council that is hell bent to develop, develop, develop The Council will have too much power to override the wishes of the majority of residents. It will be easier for Council to amend zoning bylaw and approve more controversial developments. There are too many unfinished developments in Town already More expensive servicing; makes planning for types of development more difficult; takes Town planning out of hands of PLANNERS and puts it in hands of developers
Expanding the GCB to match the Town boundary would:
Q2. Decrease the length of time and procedural requirements to make a change to the OCP and zoning bylaws should the Town decide it wants to change its OCP with respect to land that is currently outside of the GCB.
Q2 — BENEFITS
No benefits to residents None. It's a negative to much control by 5 people. No "sober second thought'?" No full participation of the community None As long as there is sufficient public info & consultation things should proceed as quick as possible No benefits Little!!! Council only. Residents spent 2 years defining the last OCP and are now being put down after so much work
Streamlining the prospects of Council and the community to control development as they see fit Cost savings; Time savings; Town takes responsibility for what happens inside its boundaries To potential developers None
Yes by all means let's decrease the time for development processes. Hopefully that would encourage development (industrial, business) that would contribute to our future sustainability Wait until a new Council is elected Development can be fast tracked
Not sure Faster permitting Quicker permits We are not given sufficient time. As usual things are being rammed through. How do the '3' justify ignoring the vast majority of taxpayers??? None This means the Council, NOT the residents Helps to provide some certainty to property owners if they have bright ideas
Q2 — DRAWBACKS
Residents of this community are at the mercy of 3 ruthless Councillors who could not care less about the opinions of residents OCP can be changed to hastily lose compact quality — walkability OCP changes of this magnitude should be carefully considered with full participation of the community Reducing timeframes risks the possibility of "knee jerk" changes and neglecting consideration of the big picture
OCP belongs to the people. Changes should be by the people with defined timelines. Why not include votes on this subject in the municipal election This will empower Council (as current) that is very pro development to fast track OCP revisions in favour of new development in previously undeveloped areas.
[Decrease the legth of time and procedural requirements to make a change to the OCP] Perfect example of why we don't want this to happen is Pheasant Glen (formerly in the ALR — now may become urban sprawl with major housing development not in urban centre) Cherry picking, changing OCP to satisfy certain individuals is wrong
None Rush through does not permit the whole community to be involved Process for major land use changes needs chacks and balances. Process needs to allow community time to make well informed decisions about land use changes; Why does Council want to change land uses outside UCB? Major changes and decisions need more time for contemplation and analyzing the consequences. What is the purpose of a community OCP if Council can change it at its discretion. This is not a minor change to the OCP. It is a major change! There is a sense of fear by some residents that Council (now and future) would move to fast with the "flavor of the day" or influence by those with "deep pockets" Too hurried to make a decision of this magnitude. Please wait Possible too fast a change without full consideration of long range repercussions; Do we want a small number of people who would be the majority of Council to have so much power? NO Not sure Could fewer reviews result in something undesireable being developed? Fewer restrictions to undesirable development 3 members of Council vote as a block again and again; In my judgement and that of many others, the RDN will help us get a balanced and comprehensive study of the issues which is not forth coming of the present
Council What is the rush? This is a major decision that affects others. These decisions should be made with great care. The RDN would give more input The Town if it wants an OCP change should then go through a full OCP review; Citizens involved in planning long range can help in setting up an OCP that everyone agrees with. Right now Council is off side from the citizens in their Town The OCP should not be changed at all until decisions are made for the next OCP. If some important change is necessary, a referendum should be held whereby the citizens of the Town can participate in the decision- making NOTE: A Council of 5 people should not be allowed to overturn the wishes of the majority of the residents who've spent much time and effort involved in the OCP process Bad decisions are often made when insufficient time; Fundamentally don't approve decreasing the time! Long range planning solves all problem!! This was to be a public information meeting: We find it is to be OCP workshop
Q3. What other benefits do you see to the proposed change?
None Absolutely none None 0 Zero With the current social and economic climate the Town needs to be in control of its future. To adapt and adjust to maintain the quality of life in Qualicum Beach Town able to be the only level of government as oversight None It plays into the interest of the P-Glen development which will reinforce and exacerbate the polarization that currently exists in the community Only benefits developers A positive step towards facilitation of development of employment creating sustainable economy of TQB
None
None More negatives than positives None
Q4. What other drawbacks do you see to the proposed change?
COSTS — Leave it alone All developers requests seem to be rubber stamped. NO consideration for the residents. Can only make things worse here; opens up too many areas for subdivision type development eg. waterfront estates. Sustainability? Environment? Mere words. As it is there seems to be little oversight of building projects in Town, how will less or no involvement by RDN improve things? It misses the point of the Regional Growth Strategy to protect the environment, save us from urban sprawl, protect the taxpayer. We have seen instances of very bad development in this Town, now we can spread them around. Urban sprawl. It doesn't sound like it will have any negative impacts. The Town & Council have been doing a great job of
looking out for the Town's interest Proposed changes/revisions to the OCP constitute a minor amendment — do not agree — changes constitute a major amendment Having to supply sewer etc for any future approved development; slippery slope: would likely pressure to expand UCB Urban sprawl. Water problems — aquifers down this winter; Parking chaos within the Town — unless the school closure is designated for parking not hi-rises? The streamlined process plays to the interests of those who want to develop their property expediently — if the proposed developments are perceived by the community as un-wanted or as negatives — then expedited protocols will be felt as negative Urban sprawl; Ignoring OCPs — changing whenever Council wants to; too much power for Town of QB There will be pressure to provide sewer and water services to these new land areas once development potential is there Council is leading this change. 5 persons making the decision for whole community. Process is flawed — too rushed — actually a major amendment to the Regional Growth Strategy Listed on other side. This is a major amendment not a minor amendment I'm not fully clear on why we really need this change now Not enough time for thought as to what long-range impacts could happen in all the areas that could be affected
It is a bad idea unless you stand to benefit financially from this. With this Council it would involve opening the Town up to developers and not respecting the wishes of the citizens who pay the taxes that run this Town.
Q5. What other information would assist you in furthering your understanding of this topic?
None The truth Full OCP review at the proper time this proposal has too many implications to leave up to 1 meeting. Why do we agree to large subdivions only to have them change their plans — don't need anymore No other information required A map or summary of what could potentially change if this change took place. How many new homes, businesses, condos, etc. How full/empty is current UCB — do we still have room. If so, why push expansion? Presentation by UCB experts. Presentation by RDN personnel only — with no QB Town or Council present.
We need to understand this major change fully and completely How is this a "minor amendment" to the Regional Growth Strategy, by definition Present similar case examples please, including these that resulted in change and those where no changes were made. This might help us understand impacts to other communities Lawyers' opinion on the legality of a minor amendment versus major amendment None More information on possible infrastructure costs when development occurs in other areas The '3' has a moral responsibility to fully explain their reasons for this process. This information and the drawings should have been in both local newspapers and not on the back pages A full OCP review
Q6. Do you have any other comments?
Oh how the Town would benefit from the resignation of the three Councillors who vote as a block on any issue. Why is this being rushed through? Could this issue be voted on at the municipal election in November. OCPs are made by the people after a lot of hard work — like the RGS and should be respected — not ignored by 5 people on Council. Referendum if need to change?
The OCP has turned into a great comic joke. How about a referendum? One public meeting of less than 50 people is not sufficient! Is this an end run for Pheasant Glen? What about affordable housing? Lots of people are not present here for this only public hearing on March 4th. How about a referendum on this topic? This is taking up a lot of staff time, how about all the other business of the Town. This apparently came from the Council Strategic Plan, how was that developed?
Why should we participate in the next OCP? Does this matter, what happens if "Council" doesn't hear what they want to? There is a lot of emotion, and misunderstanding around this meaning develop doesn't need to go through the process
Planning must follow an open, transparent process that cannot be changed or compromised on an individual whim. OCP is like a swiss match, discussing UCB & GCB is only 1 piece. Worried about only discussing a narrow part of OCP. Needs to be a broader conversation.
We fully expect this to be pushed through with as much speed as the Clarion Development. Is this really the only info session available to residents. Why was the info. package only put on your website 24 hrs. prior? This is not a sufficient process to call an OCP review process A major change to OCP at this time would be redundant and costly
I am not happy with the communication process used to the community. I do not believe this is a minor amendment to the OCP It appears that Council does not agree with Regional Growth Strategy and its purpose. If Council feels the GCB is a hindrance or unfair or an obstacle to their autonomy then are they not supporting the Regional Growth Strategy It's time Council protected the interests of the taxpayer. Eg. desecration of land heritage development. Election! Election! Election! Undo rush to have OCP amended. What's the hurry?! Why go ahead with now or wait until the OCP in 2016? My general observation throughout comments made is that there was a deep feeling of distrust in the current Council and therefore wonder what the real agenda is Although it seems presented as a "minor" change, it is not. Stick with the Official Community Plan timeline. RDN has already allowed undesirable developments in areas just outside of municipal boundaries — how can we be involved in influencing these approvals?
