Electoral Area B’s OCP (official community plan) hit another snag during the Powell River Regional District board meeting on August 23, held at Lang Bay Community Hall.
While the OCP managed to receive third reading, staff will report on whether correct procedure has been followed before the bylaw is forwarded to the provincial government for approval.
Electoral Area A Director Patrick Brabazon questioned the process in a statement he read during the board meeting. He said the manner in which the OCP had been conducted brought into question the integrity of the regional district.
Stan Gisborne, Area B director and chair of the public hearing held on August 13, intervened at least six times during submissions from the public, Brabazon said, “these being an attempt at refuting, debating and arguing with the speakers.”
As well, Brabazon said the binder containing a record of public input that was available at the public hearing was incomplete. After he questioned the contents of the binder, he was eventually given a binder that contained many more submissions than what had been available during the public hearing. He produced the binder he had been given at the board meeting.
Brabazon said he has been given conflicting answers to the question whether acceptable public input into the Area B OCP begins in the spring of 2012 or, in fact, dates back to 2008, when the regional district began a review of the existing southern region OCP which includes both areas B and C. The legal opinion is that, “written materials relating to the southern region OCP review and update process are relevant” to the proposed Area B OCP, he reported.
“Our regional district has, over the years, created an open and principled governance model which has engaged the trust of our constituents,” Brabazon said. “Any deviation from procedure or appearance of unfairness can only erode the trust and engender cynicism and disrespect.”
There are a number of procedural mistakes and perceived examples of unfairness that have arisen through the Area B OCP hearing process and these reflect badly on the regional district as a whole, not just the planning committee, Brabazon also said. “It is my belief that these issues are very serious and need to be given further review and consideration at the committee level prior to sending the OCP to the minister. We should not betray the trust of our constituents and risk our reputation for integrity by proceeding without this precautionary review.”
Brabazon moved referral of the OCP back to the planning committee and Texada Island Director Dave Murphy seconded the motion.
There was no discussion on Brabazon’s motion because it was a referral back to a committee. However, Maggie Hathaway, City of Powell River director, asked if she and Jim Palm, the other city director on the board, could vote on the motion, since it was a procedural issue.
Colin Palmer, board chair and Area C director, said no, but Brabazon challenged his answer and pointed out it was not just a planning issue. Palmer asked Mac Fraser, chief administrative officer, for advice.
After a short recess during which staff researched the question, Fraser said Brabazon had raised an issue of the board’s integrity, yet the OCP motion comes under a service area in which only four electoral areas participate.
He advised the four participating directors of the planning committee should consider the original motion to give the OCP third reading and the entire board should then entertain a motion whether to submit the bylaw to the minister until issues have been resolved.
Directors went along with his advice. Brabazon alone voted in opposition to the motion to give third reading to the OCP.
Hathaway said it was important the board make sure that due process has been followed. “Some of this is contentious in any event and we want to make sure we’re on solid ground,” she said.
Gisborne said when he chaired the public hearing he “attempted to answer questions and not get into debate. As far as I understood, all the information was there. I pointed it out to them in the room. As far as I’m concerned, all due process was carried out.”
.jpg;w=120;h=80;mode=crop)
