Issue of 12-storey development raised at council
Although the proposed 12-storey development for the old packinghouse property was not on the agenda at the council meeting of Monday, June 20, one Osoyoos resident opposed to the idea spoke as a delegate.
Gwen Monteith addressed Mayor Slater and council and presented a petition with close to 900 names opposing the development.
The names were gathered in the course of 11 days, Monteith said.
The petition read: We, the undersigned, are opposed to any development of more than 4 storeys on or near the shoreline of Lake Osoyoos.
It was evident from the public hearing held Thursday, June 9, that many Osoyoos residents who attended and spoke out were opposed to the 12 storey development, although a few were in support.
At the Monday night council meeting, Gwen Monteith asked council to discourage further high rise density along or near our lake front.rnMonteith said that the community elected the council to represent the best interests of the community, not the profit interests of developers.
She added that she was disheartened to discover that Destination Osoyoos and our council have been harbouring the knowledge of this profit maximizing venture on this crucial waterfront property for months, without, apparently, suspecting the negative impact this 12-storey structure would have on the community.rnMonteith conceded that some aspects of the project could offer a number of benefits for the community, but felt that would not be the case at the proposed density on the lakefront.
She also remarked on comments made by Gloria Basham in September 2001, when the same property was up for rezoning from Downtown Commercial to Waterfront Development.
At that time, Basham suggested the town buy the property, retain a portion for community parkland and sell the remaining portion for private development in order to recoup the purchase cost, insisting, as well, that the development blend in with the surrounding area.
Monteith added that the comments from Osoyoos-born Rogerio Carvalheiro were words of wisdom to heed. Carvalheiro, a project manager for a Los Angeles trust company involved with heritage projects, cautioned in 2001 that the last thing Osoyoos needs is a building that everyone will resent in a few years. At that time, Carvalheiro urged that the packinghouse building be kept and converted to various community purposes, as on Granville Island in Vancouver.
We cannot follow that path now, but we do still have a choice to make on how a buyer develops the land.rnOur Official Community Plan and present bylaws need to be given some time to fall into place. Thus, we can see if and/or when changes need to be made she added.
Please honour and respect our request to reject the developers' request for rezoning of this lakefront property.
We would further request that the present Waterfront Development Bylaw be amended to allow no higher than three storeys at this location.rnMonteith pointed to the wording of the report for the rezoning application, headed Rezoning/OCP Amendment, and said that, according to how she understood the Local Government Act, a public information meeting is required prior to a Public Hearing.
The Law reads: 'Pursuant to Section 879 of the Local Government Act, public consultation is required for all OCP amendments,' Monteith said.
Finally, Monteith addressed her concerns that the entire project had been veiled in secrecy and asked the mayor and council to explain why the public had little information on the proposed development before the announcement of the public hearing.
This development was treated no differently than any other development that comes to us, said Mayor Slater in answer.
Town of Osoyoos CAO Elsie Lemke said that because the designation of the property was already zoned as Downtown Waterfront, no OCP amendment was necessary; therefore no public information meeting was required.
Monteith responded in closing that, although the town met its legal requirement, out of respect for the community, there should have been an informational meeting with the developers and the architect, especially considering the very crucial property in question.rnMayor Slater remarked at the meeting that council was not going to support the proposal outlined at the June 9 Public Hearing, although neither he nor council made a motion to reject the proposal.
The developers were made quite aware of the public's feelings at the hearing, and they are at work on another development plan, Slater said.
He added that the next plan would be less than twelve storeys but definitely more than three.
