Differences of opinion persisted at city council over a bylaw amendment that would trade oversight for the cutting of red tape.
Salmon Arm council gave three readings at its March 10 meeting to an amendment of the city's Subdivision and Development Services Bylaw, to exempt the city from having to complete frontage requirements – things such as curb/gutter and sidewalk – with capital works, as triggered by the bylaw when a building permit is obtained. This came after significant discussion of the amendment at council's Feb. 10 meeting that led to the amendment being deferred so additional information could be provided.
At the March 10 meeting, council received a report from city engineer Jennifer Wilson. She explained how in the past, with city initiated projects on city owned land, if frontage improvements were triggered by the bylaw a variance permit would be sought, as what recently occurred with the Zone 2 Pump Station construction project in Canoe. At the Dec. 2 development and planning services committee, staff said frontage improvements required by the bylaw for that project would have tacked another $400,000 to the $4.3 million project.
Wilson pointed out the expansion of Fire Hall #2 is another project where staff would be applying for a variance if the bylaw weren't amended. Without the variance, occupancy would not be permitted until frontage improvements are completed. Wilson said staff would have to "come back for funding from council because at this point, funding for those frontage improvements have not been included as part of this project." She also noted those frontage improvements could be addressed through another project.
"The city has budgeted this year for a corridor study to plan out the entirety of the active transportation corridor on 30th Street," said Wilson. "Staff would recommend going forward with a future project that was funded by council, and a large scale corridor upgrade of 30th where we could apply for grants and potentially offset some of the taxpayer funding for that. In that case, we also have some frontage improvement money contributed by developers along that corridor as well that again help offset those taxpayer dollars."
Speaking in favour of the amendment, Coun. Kevin Flynn said, "I think anything that creates more red tape and can slow the process down, in my mind is a mistake, and government applying for their own variances to me doesn’t make a lot of sense."
Mayor Alan Harrison called variance permits a viable solution, but said it could delay projects.
"For me, this information is very helpful and while there are certainly two points of view on it, I think that staff would come to us and say hey look, in this project we do need to upgrade this frontage or whatever it might be," said Harrison. "But in a situation where they felt frontage was not necessary… or could be done later… than I’m sure they would bring that to us."
Opposed to the amendment, Couns. Tim Lavery and Sylvia Lindgren argued council should continue to have a role in such decisions.
"For me, these are decisions that council often will wear," said Lindgren. "They should be able to at least see them before the decisions get made. So I don’t support an overall exemption, I do like when they come one at a time.
"We’ve been very generous in granting those exemptions. It means we’re well versed in what the reasons are for that, what the project would have required had a private developer done it, we could speak to it in public. If they just happen behind the scenes and we don’t have any information, it’s very difficult for me to speak to citizens about these issues."
