Is assisted living going to be built?

An OCP amendment to change the land use designation of a lot currently zoned R1 (Single Family Residential) to P1 (Private and Public Institution) was given second and third readings by Osoyoos Town Council at the December 19 meeting.
But this did not happen without some opposition from Councillor Allan Carswell.
The OCP/zoning amendment has been the subject of some controversy, as both neighbours adjacent to the subject property (located near the Mohawk gas station) and the OCP Review Committee have noted several objections to the appropriateness of the site.
Developer Farouk Shah has applied for the OCP/zoning amendment in order to develop an 84-unit senior assisted living facility.
Those opposed to the amendments argue that increased traffic and noise and loss of views would negatively affect their neighbourhood. Residents have also been upset about the lack of information about the proposal for the development prior to council's announcement of it at a meeting on October 3.
Support for the development has come from some in the community who agree that a senior assisted living facility is needed in Osoyoos.
At the December 19 council meeting, Councillor Carswell said he could not support the OCP and zoning changes as presented.
From what I read of the public hearing comments, in talking with many of the residents in the area, and with what the OCP Review Committee had to say, I don't think I can support the development as such.
I would like to see the residents and the developer go back and try to work out something that is agreeable, said Carswell.
He argued that the residents should have been able to have more say in the development plans. But his motion not to give the amendment applications second and third readings died on the table when no other councillor came forward to second it.
Instead, Councillor Ted Cronmiller moved that the amendment applications be given second and third readings, and was seconded by Councillor Dick Flintoft.
Cronmiller argued that until council came to the development permit stage and had a clear idea what the development would really look like, the process should be moved forward.
At the development permit stage we could provide further input to the developer. When I look at it, I think the property there close to Main Street would be an appropriate place for a development such as this, Cronmiller said.
He added that the facility would be a valuable asset to the community and that he believed the development would be a good project.
Councillor Stu Wells said he also supported the development. He noted that, although there was much opposition to the development at the public hearing, he felt many of the issues were addressed by the developer. He added that he wanted to see what the developer would come back with 'on paper,' and said the facility is needed in Osoyoos.
Flintoft agreed that Carswell had made some good comments in regards to some of the residents' concerns, but argued that council needs to ensure that those concerns are addressed prior to passing a building permit.
Mayor Slater agreed that the developer has made a number of changes to the original plan in order for the building to better fit the area.
The onus will be on him to make sure he satisfies council, the neighbourhood and the planning department, Slater said.
Carswell responded by saying he feels this type of development is needed in the community, but wanted to see if the residents would have more opportunity for input.
My question here is, if we do give this second and third reading, is there a formal way for the residents of the area to look at that development and provide input again, or will council simply be given the development permit and be asked to give fourth reading?rnSlater said council has a record of their concerns from the public hearing and that residents' would be able to go to Development Services and look at the changes to the plans. He said the Advisory Design Panel would also be looking at the proposal.
There may be enough changes in the development application that it would require us to go back to a public hearing, even after third reading, Slater said.
The motion to give second and third readings was carried by a vote of three to one.