further to yesterday's post...
Why would our Mayor and Councillors consider contravening their own city bylaw for the sake of more development?
The RDEK Board of Directors needs the City of Cranbrook’s official input immediately for their information and procedure. Council will make that official comment tomorrow evening at the 6:00pm Council meeting.
From Bylaw 3550 Cranbrook’s Official Community Plan
“Subdivision of parcels under 8 ha should be restricted within a ten kilometre radius of the City of Cranbrook to reduce the continued fragmentation of land in the interests of ensuring economic and orderly growth and development over the long term as well as promoting sustainability of the City’s public works, facilities and services.”
Cranbrook’s CAO is recommending Council not oppose this major development proposal from Sheldon Isaman which is located 3.0 km from the city boundary and 6.6km from the Post Office.
If you feel due and democratic process is at stake, you may wish to talk to one of Cranbrook’s Councillors before tomorrow evening when their decision to endorse the proposal comes before them.
After tomorrow evening you may wish to talk to an RDEK Director. The RDEK will be proceeding with their due process on October 7th at the Board Meeting at the RDEK at 9:00am.
City of Cranbrook Councillors:
Mayor Scott Manjak 250-489-5988
Jim Wavrecan 250-426-4605
Liz Schatschneider 250-489-2103 or 250-426-6643
Diana J. Scott 250-417-3192
Denise Pallesen 250-426-4964
Bob Whetham 250-489-4365
Angus Davis 250-426-8823
If you live in the Regional District of East Kootenay (RDEK) you may contact these Directors:
Chair Scott Manjak
Vice Chair Rob Gay
AREA DIRECTOR PHONE
Electoral Area A Mike Sosnowski Home: 250-423-1029
Electoral Area B Heath Slee Home: 250-887-3483
Electoral Area C Rob Gay Home: 250-489-4242
Electoral Area E Jane Walter Home: 250-427-2577
Electoral Area F Wendy Booth 250-345-6155
Electoral Area G Gerry Wilkie Home: 250-347-9841
Village of Canal Flats Ute Juras Home: 250-349-5672
City: 250-349-5462
City of Cranbrook Scott Manjak City: 250-426-4211
Liz Schatschneider Office: 250-489-3334
City: 250-426-4211
City of Kimberley Jim Ogilvie Home: 250-427-2623
City: 250-427-5311
City of Fernie Cindy Corrigan City: 250-423-2233
Cell: 250-278-0481
District of Sparwood Gayle Travis Home: 250-425-6928
Cell: 250-425-9194
City: 250-425-6271
District of Elkford Dean McKerracher Home: 250-865-2303
City: 250-865-4000
District of Invermere Gerry Taft City: 250-342-9281
Village of Radium Hot
Springs Dee Conklin Cell: 250-341-5100
Office: 250-342-2999
City: 250-347-6455
This is an opportunity for those councillors seeking re-election to gain some political points by supporting their own OCP and the people of Cranbrook who voted against the East Hill boundary expansion.
ReplyDeleteIf the mayor and council contravene a city bylaw, I hope the citizens of Cranbrook will carefully note the action of those who vote in favour of so doing, and oust those who seek re-election. It would seem to me that council must first rescind the bylaw before it can even think of supporting the request.The CAO, it seems, based on news reports, is recommending council break its own law. WOW!!! What next from this gang?
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, the OCP is a guiding document that discusses development and future needs. The Regional Context Statement states that subdivision "should" (a word that intentionally gives discretion to council) be restricted and the entire statement sets out several criteria for withholding the city's approval. There are several issues addressed in the document, including: concerns of increased fire hazard to the city and negative impacts to the watershed, both of which are mitigated by the location of the subdivision east and not adjacent to the existing city boundary. Further, impact on the city infrastructure, where the subdivision will have it's own water supplies and sewer systems and the primary access to Cranbrook will be the provincial highway. Another concern is the impact that development has on the city's ability to plan future expansion, and we have already said no to expansion in that direction. On the other hand, the development has the potential to positively impact the local economy by increasing traffic to local shops, adding to the labour force, increasing school enrollment, etc. Finally, the final sentence in the statement indicates that the City looks forward to consultation with the RDEK. If the RDEK could rely on the City to fail to exercise its discretion in the application of the OCP, there would be no need for consultation at all. Shame on those that would shirk their responsibility to govern and rely on "the rule of law", particularly when that excuse is used in conjunction with a willful misinterpretation of the law itself.
ReplyDeleteHmm. Posting home phone numbers. Always nice when children answer their home phones to hostile screw balls. Looking forward to the shoe being on the other foot.
ReplyDeleteAll of the councilors' home numbers are easily available in an amazing document call the PHONE BOOK! So, berating the CLC for posting them become pretty much moot, doesn't it?
ReplyDelete