On the heels of major controversy about a BC Housing project in the downtown core, the City of Grand Forks council came close to rejecting a planned second development slated for 19th Street before revisiting and reconsidering in the course of one meeting.
At Monday’s Committee of the Whole and regular council meetings, council was asked to consider approving a development permit for the application. The project did not require a variance, and council’s role in development permits is approving the “form and character” of a planned development – whether or not the look of the development matches and enhances the surrounding neighbourhood.
At the morning Committee of the Whole meeting, Coun. Neil Krog voted against the recommendation to send the permit to the evening meeting, taking issue with BC Housing’s process for engaging council and the limited role of council approval in BC Housing projects.
“We are given permission to decide on form and character, so I would like brown, not tan trim on Second Street or 19th Street. It is just total crap. If they ever see this video: BC Housing, you suck,” Krog said, addressing the GFTV cameras recording the meeting.
Manager of Development and Engineering Dolores Sheets said the city had already received interest in the development from local seniors wanting to secure a spot.
“I have already had two seniors call me about this development and ask me when they can get in,” Sheets said. “They are excited because they are having six accessible units and elevators.”
Sheets said that the project will be operated by BC Housing on a low-income criteria basis and comes with funding for 35 years.
Council voted to send it to the evening meeting, but it was not without controversy later in the day.
Council voted the permit down at the evening meeting, only for it to be passed when Mayor Brian Taylor recalled it to the table later in the agenda.
During the first discussion at the evening meeting, Coun. Rod Zielinski said he would prefer to vote on it after the bylaws section of the agenda, as he didn’t feel the development complied with the bylaws until a minor bylaw amendment several items down, described earlier in the day by staff as correcting a “typo,” was approved.
“Without that amendment I don’t believe I can support it,” Zielinski said. That amendment was passed later in the agenda.
“The development permit is fine, because it is form and character,” said Sheets. “You are not approving the development per se, you are approving form and character of the development.”
The motion was defeated, with Taylor and Coun. Chris Moslin the only two votes in favour. Aside from Zielinski and Krog (who had previously expressed his objection) no councillors elaborated on their “no” votes.
Moslin said during the discussion that he did have concerns about site access, but that he would vote in favour of the permit as “necessary.”
“I want to speak in favour of form and character of housing project as a necessary part of our recovery process,” Moslin said. “As council knows I have some reservations. Egress in and out leaves me scratching my head… [but] I can accept the form and character as something that is necessary.”
When the motion was defeated, Taylor was momentarily at a loss before regrouping to urge council to reconsider.
“You are aware of voting this down, from planning standpoint this project will not happen this year…I have the right to draw this back for another vote, which I can exercise at this point,” Taylor said. “I would like to caution you that this would be a major disaster to lose this project on the grounds of not liking how it looks.”
Staff advised Taylor to revisit the recall vote at the end of the agenda.
“Let the record show the mayor has called this back for a second vote,” Taylor said later in the meeting. “I don’t know what’s going on, I thought we had a good idea about this project going forward.
“This could lose it for a year or for good. That is the risk we are taking…a multi-million dollar investment in low income housing for families and we are putting it on the line. Just so you know the importance of this vote,” Taylor cautioned council.
In discussion on the revisited motion, Zielinski said that he was “in a pickle” on how to vote.
“I don’t understand with BC Housing we are threatened with take this or don’t,” he said.
In response to a question from council, staff noted that BC Housing had already let out a contract for the construction on this development.
In response, Taylor said that it wasn’t a threat by BC Housing, but the city staff’s professional opinion of the impact of failing to approve the permit.
When the vote was recalled, the motion carried, with Krog the lone vote in opposition.
