"Public debate over a controversial bylaw in Coldstream may soon be eased," begins a December 2nd, 2011 story by Jennifer Smith of The Morning Star, under the banner Information compiled on development bylaw.
or, more correctly, will be compiled.
As should have been done prior to the triggering of the bylaw.
The article continues:
"A list of all general and specific off-site works requests from the district is being compiled following public concerns around a proposed Subdivision, Development and Servicing Bylaw.
'There's some uncertainty and confusion among the public as to when and where off-site works may be required,' said Coun. Doug Dirk, who pushed (Ed.note: only recently) for a list to be drawn up.
Despite some concerns about the amount of staff time required to create such a list, the request was unanimously passed by council.
'We were attacked severely during the election on this bylaw,' said Coun. Maria Besso, who suggests some information for the public may have eased some resident concerns.
'We never actually publicly made a press release or put anything up on our website and that's something we need to do.'
Since the bylaw is already in the process of being amended, it is hoped the information might aid the process.
'I think it's work that has to be done anyway,' said Coun. Pat Cochrane." (end of article)
Some uncertainty and confusion?
Staff time required to create such a list?
So it sounds as though Coldstream Council was flying by the seat of their pants during the recent fiasco.
How so?
Charging one homeowner ~$300,000 for a multi-use path along their new property's roadfrontage, based ostensibly on either the 600-name (or 370-names as was later commented) petition from residents further afield didn't ring any alarm bells for this Mayor and Council. One has to question whether this prejudicial treatment of one homeowner--without either earlier publishing a list of desired community works or, dispensing with Council's normal tenet of "user pay"--was intentional or accidental. Neither denotes confidence in this council's planning.
If intentional, printable words don't exist that accurately reflect people's disgust.
If accidental, then the lack of confidence in this Mayor and Council by 829 voters (who voted for mayoralty candidate Hrabchuk...more than half of the incumbent mayor's votes) should give them pause.
Whether 600 or fewer people requested a multi-use path along that stretch of Kidston Road is a moot point if "users (demanders) pay", according to Coun. Dirk.
In addition, mayor Jim Garlick, at the fiasco's culmination, indicated that Council would look to Kelowna to see how they handled their off-site works requirements.
Well, it's been months since the proverbial mincemeat hit the fan and the mayor is likely unwilling to admit that our thriving neighbours 56 km to the south do not charge homeowners off-site works. Nor do they call homeowners Developers.
In case our elected officials' phones don't work and they're walking those 65 kilometers, Kelowna's treatment of homeowners is easy to find, excerpted here:
It's under Schedule 7, entitled Types of Development that will Generally have a "Directly Attributable Impact" requiring installation of Works and Services.
RESIDENTIAL: Single/Two Unit Additions/Alterations Accessory Bldg.
Water: NO; Sewer: NO; Drainage: NO; Roads: NO; Road Reserve: NO; Right-of-Way: NO.
Not one mention of a residential homeowner being a Developer.
Could it be that Coldstream's Mayor and Council were anticipating the sentiment -- albeit predating it -- of the Occupy Movement?
"As with transparency, I wouldn't say anticipation is one of Council's skillsets," offers Kia.
So which is it, Contrary Coldstream?
User/demander/petitioner(s) pay?
or the object of the petition should pay?
Your 99 per cent await The List.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Although I may be somewhat off topic, I am just outraged at Coldstream Council for once again pandering to special interest groups!Following is an article that appeared in the Morning Star regarding OUR recent $875,000 purchase of new(private) parkland:
ReplyDeleteBoaters banned
Boating season may be over but efforts to keep boat trailers out of Coldstream’s newest park are full speed ahead.
As part of the sale agreement of the log cabin property on Kalavista Road, efforts have been made to restrict boat trailer parking through a new bylaw.
“I think it’s important that this property is protected for the public to enjoy,” said Jim Cookson, former owner of the property. “We would not have sold it to (Regional District of North Okanagan) if this bylaw wasn’t in place.”
Further efforts will be made in January to enhance the bylaw, something Cookson said was also part of the sale agreement.
“It’s not just boat trailer parking, it’s anything to do with facilitating the boat launch period.”
The restrictions are welcome news to neighbours concerned that the change in ownership could mean an eventual creation of a parking lot – especially after the existing parking lot down the road was created several years ago.
“I just want to thank this council for taking seriously citizen’s concerns about the log house property and our concerns about preserving it as a park,” said Louise Christie, a member of the Society for the Protection of Kalamalka Lake (SPrKL).
The Cooksons have allowed such groups to use the home and land, therefore many are eager to continue doing so.
“It provided a home for us.
“It’s been a wonderful amenity for us.”
This transaction happened before this bylaw was in place. Mr. Cookson was paid $875,000 which is the same amount he purchased it for in 2007 when land was worth much more.Mr.Cookson tried unsuccessfully to have the property rezoned and was "bailed out" by this current purchase. A few realtors I talked with said the value should of been much lower as the log house is spider infested and not very suitable for living in. A further look at the taxation amount for this property shows this propert has been paying taxes based on a $580,000 appraisal a far cry from $875,000.
I also think that this should be left as greenspace and would make a great place to launch canoes and kayaks from. What bothers me is that we are putting restrictions on this parkspace based of of what Mr. Cookson and Sparkle want which is a group formed by Mr. Cookson's wife. The Cookson's enjoy owning lakefront property on both Okanagan lake and Kalamalka lake and have boat docks on both properties.
I think this area from the boat launch north to Alexanders pub should be made into a park for all user groups. A proper launch facility for boats,kayaks,canoes and paddleboarders should be put in place and a nice grassy picnic area would be a great addition to this area. This would ensure lake access by everyone and all users groups in our community.The restrictions being put on now could possibly hinder any future betterment of this area.
This area belongs to us ALL, not just the immediate residents and those fortunate enough to be able to live on or near the lake.
It looks like another three long years of boaters rights to acces our local lakes being eroded.
Where was the public consultation? Oh I forgot...this is Coldstream...Jim Garlick's( my community) playground.
We should put a restriction on how many new bylaws one council can make per term!
ReplyDelete