Spot the differences …

… in council reaction to public outcry.

Spot the difference-images
Pay parking at Rocky Point Park
Council decides on July 8, 2014 to implement a pay parking trial to start on August 15. Complaints follow. Two weeks later, on July 22, 2014, council backtracks. “With the public outcry we have heard, it’s almost like Armageddon that we started.” (Councillor Bob Elliot, quoted in both local community papers)
Trial plan delayed until at least 2015, to allow for public consultation.
Media stories, published in July 25, 2014 print editions — Rocky Point pay parking on hold:
http://www.thenownews.com/news/rocky-point-pay-parking-on-hold-1.1260609
http://www.tricitynews.com/news/268526402.html

Monster homes — house size and height
Concerns over monster homes get significant media attention in June 2014. Local Facebook page (Good Neighbour Bylaw Port Moody) provides online forum dedicated to these concerns. Council holds a town hall meeting on the topic on July 15, 2014. Town hall is well-attended, and many comments are also sent electronically (email and online comment form). Special Council Committee of the Whole meeting to discuss the issue is set for July 29, 2014, with promises for resolution as soon as possible, and back to regular council in September 2014. The agenda, including town hall minutes and other public feedback is here: http://www.portmoody.ca/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=7294
[Note: the agenda has two parts — the first part is the ‘Building Discussion’ and the second part is Tree Bylaw Update.]

Official Community Plan (OCP)
Council ‘re-opens’ OCP (adopted in 2011) to ‘update’ plan in response to confirmation of Skytrain Line going ahead through Port Moody. ‘Update’ proposes very major changes in vision and zoning, including population increases of up to 400% in Moody Centre, but other areas affected as well (and with some unknowns; e.g., large special study areas such as Imperial Oil and Suncor lands on north and south shores). Concerns raised regarding traffic, parking, parks, neighbourhood character, environment (numerous issues), schools and other community space, and more.

Residents send feedback resulting in 900+ page agenda in spring 2013, and pack subsequent town halls to overflowing to speak and to listen. Feedback, largely negative, and questions continue to flow to city hall.

Council ‘listens’ to concerns, makes some relatively minor changes, and then forges ahead with 1st, 2nd, and 3rd readings (with public hearing in April 2014) for a new bylaw to adopt the plan.

Current status: OCP requires 4th and final reading to pass and adopt new bylaw. This would likely have happened in July 2014, except the plan had to go to Metro Vancouver’s board of directors for review, and did on July 11, 2014 (with no local notice to advise residents). The Metro Vancouver board of directors upset Port Moody council by not approving all requests for changes to industrial zoned land to ‘general urban’ (denied changes for Andres site and Mill and Timber, aka Flavelle, mill site). Council expresses anger and disappointment over this roadblock; considers whether or not to pass OCP anyway, which would put Port Moody into a dispute with Metro Vancouver (and potentially involve very expensive legal fees). On July 22, 2014, council decides to look into potential for an appeal of Metro Vancouver’s decision. Next steps — unknown, but Metro Vancouver’s next meeting is scheduled for September 19, 2014.

Options for council: get Metro Vancouver’s approval either by appeal or by text amendments (which would involve a new public hearing), or adopt plan without approval at a time of its choosing (i.e., at any regular meeting of council).

Recent media attention: nil.

Did you spot the differences?

[Hint: One of the above will have impacts on the other two, affect Port Moody for the long-term, be more difficult to adjust for unintended consequences; and council has not addressed numerous public concerns.]

 

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Spot the differences …

  1. Zoe Royer says:

    When you repeatedly refer to “Council”, you are absolutely right that the majority of Council voted in support of the OCP. I would like to point out that I voted against this plan for the following reasons:

    -It lacks key elements that would protect the residents’ interests
    -Despite all the interventions by hundreds of community members, Council dismissed many changes proposed by residents
    -Public consultation has not occurred in Moody Centre – an area where the majority of development is projected to occur as shown in the new OCP
    -Several of the OCP changes I advocated failed to get support, such as:
    -My motion to preserve a 30 meters (~100 ft) ribbon of park space with trails and trees along the waterfront at the Mill & Timber site was voted down
    -My motion to set maximums for density (Floor Area Ratio or FAR) was voted down
    -My motion to set minimum requirements for employment space was voted down

    So while your report is correct, I want to make sure your readers know that I didn’t support this flawed OCP

    As for pay parking at Rocky Point Park, I voted twice against it because; Key stakes holders such as local businesses and Port Moody residents hadn’t been consulted at the time this came to Council. I was surprised when so many of my Council colleagues supported it, and relieved when the changed their minds.

    On the issue of house height and size, many of my recommendations were supported by the majority of Council, except for what I consider to be the most important and Neighbourly one:

    THAT owners and builders be required to consult immediate neighbours and that a site plan, elevations, and roof plan be posted on the property prior to obtaining a building permit.

    Thank you MCCA, for maintaining and continuously updating this informative website!

    Zoë Royer

    • mccapm says:

      Thanks for your comments. Yes, the term council was used broadly. Elsewhere and earlier on this site, we’ve reported on how individuals (mayor and councillors) voted on various items. Regarding the OCP, Councillors Royer and Glumac voted to not move the OCP forward as it is currently written.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s