Scope of Disposition of land, of concern in comments at City Council

Questions related to a proposed sale of land by the City of Prince Rupert
made for a topic of concern for a delegation at Tuesday's Council Session

Just how much land will be sold off and how much if any impact it will have on an adjoining property made for a contribution to the Public Comment period at Tuesday's City Council Session.

The topic of a proposed sale of land to provide for parking for the Digby Tower made for a presentation to Council by Theresa Lee the owner of the next door property, the Parkside Resort Hotel.

City looks to sell property adjacent Digby Tower

The owner and supporters made use of the public comment period of the Tuesday session to raise their concerns over just how much of the land that buffers the two properties would be part of the sale.

They opened their presentation by noting of some social issues in the recreation area just below the property in question and how that has seen some of those area users making use of their property for lunches at their location.

It was a bit of a rough ride at start for the group to make their case, a few minutes into the presentation Mayor Pond who was participating remotely on the night, raised concerns that their topic was out of order related to the Agenda on the night.

To help clarify the reason for the appearance, Ms. Lee outlined her frustration to that point in obtaining information on the issue.

"I came to City Hall to ask the question about the area that I presently am using as a business and I wanted to know, that you guys selling maybe already sold this piece of land which I'm presently using. I want to know exactly what the plan is how you going to do this ...they said no they are not allowed to discuss it ...

I saw in the newspaper that they are closing one of this section of the land which you are selling ... that's why we came here because nobody is telling us what you are doing"

Mayor Pond however once again raised his concerns over whether the topic should be discussed.

"The conversation is completely out of order if it's not addressing an item that's specifically coming up on the Agenda and I just don't see it on our Agenda this evening ... the Chair needs to rule on whether this conversation is even in order, I'm sorry to be this way, but this is a really specific item and people need to talk directly to the Agenda "

Towards that observation, both Councillor Barry Cunningham and City Manager Rob Buchan pointed out the topic was likely related towards the road access beside the Digby Towers, an item which was included in the Bylaws portion of the night's Agenda, which would make it allowable for discussion. 

From those advisories, Mr. Pond then stepped back from his objections.

From her further observations, the main concern for the hotel owners was to maintain road access for her business and to have a better idea towards just how much land was to be sold.

Following another reproach towards how the group was approaching the topic, the City Manager called on the Director of Operations Richard Pucci to help to clarify the issue.

Mr. Pucci outlined the nature of the land disposition and observed how the portion that leads to her property had been protected as a road dedication with the remainder of the road area that to be of the disposition.

Councillor Cunningham then asked about the scope of the land up for the disposition and what markers were indicating the area that is up for sale.

Mr. Buchan then again issued a direction for The Chair towards the proceedings.

"I'd encourage that you give advice that you're there to receive comments not to discuss or have comments back and forth it's about Council receiving comments on specific items on the Agenda. Director Pucci,  I think has said the road dedication will not impact access, legal access to Mrs. Lee's property. 

I will ask Director Pucci to answer Councillor Cunningham's questions about the pegs, but you know this public comment period is about you receiving input on items rather than discussing items on the agenda"

Mr. Pucci's response didn't really serve to clarify the issue for the moment,  but did provide for the prospect for more information to be made available prior to the next council session

"Unfortunately, I haven't been to the site to see the pegs, so I can't tell you if they are property posts, pins, or pegs or if they are what called witness posts which I'm not sure, there will be labels on them.

But I can provide mapping for Council that shows  ... overlayed onto aerial that shows  ... what is proposed to be disposed of, what is proposed to be kept and held for dedication,  for proper access  and so on and so forth if that's something that council wishes"

That response seemed to satisfy everyone assembled, with the City Manager advising that the issue was destined for further consideration later in the evening, with the clarity requested to be provided at the final reading of the bylaw to come in the weeks ahead.

When the topic returned as part of the Bylaws portion of the Council session, the request for more information from the Director of Operations was again reinforced, with the Councillors looking for clarification as to just how much of the property was to be sold and where it was located.

"Seeing as there is some confusion on the property line, or the line for this. I'm  hoping before we do a fourth and final reading on this that Director Pucci will get back to us with a more detailed description of exactly what is being done here. 

There seems to be some confusion as to the entry to Mrs. Lee's Property as well as there's a hedge there and two very large trees one a Ponderosa Pine the other a Cedar and that I would hate to see any of those have to be taken down so I would like to get clarification as to where this line is and what's being affected by next meeting, before we do final reading" -- Councillor Barry Cunningham

At one point Councillor Teri Forster had recommended that the consideration of the motion be postponed, however, some of the discussion that followed highlighted the need to move forward, with the desire for increased housing in the community the main theme to that course of the conversation.

The City Manager noted that the information requested would be available before the final vote to come in the weeks ahead, noting that the land disposition was something that would help to facilitate the opening the Digby Tower building which would add some much needed housing to the community.

"Council can make a motion to postpone, the staff, we undertake to provide a report responding to whether or not this any impact on access, responding to the questions that have been raised about the posts and survey and advising as to what the purpose of this is and we can have that for the same meeting that council would consider adopting or defeating the bylaw.

Postponing would simply make two more steps rather than one more step, so Council's capacity to say yes or no to this would be maintained by proceeding at this point. 

I would note that the purpose of this, is to enable the owner of Digby Towers to acquire the land so they can provide parking and the purpose of that is so that they can open the renovated  Digby Towers for housing. 

This is to facilitate housing" -- City Manager Rob Buchan

Councillor Niesh followed up on that theme, expressing concerns of adding another two to three week delay to the process which would mean a setback for providing for some new housing in the city.

"You know we've got a building that's completely renovated and they're waiting for parking so to me by delaying this by another meeting is only delaying people finding housing. 

So I think the questions that are asked of us to be answered can still be given to us by fourth reading and if at that point if we do not agree with it, we can deny at that point ...

I don't think delaying this by an two extra or three extra weeks is doing anybody any good when we can do the same thing in the same time period" -- Councillor Wade Niesh

Councillor Cunningham concurred with that current of the conversation, and from there Councillor Forster's motion to postpone the process was defeated, with the original  third reading then provided with instructions for staff to provide the items to clarify the land in question by the next meeting for fourth reading of the Bylaw.

You can review the twin elements of the discussion from the City's Video Archive, the public comment period opened up the Council Session, the Bylaw discussion comes along at the 30 minute mark.

More notes related to Tuesday's Council Session can be reviewed from our Council Timeline Feature.

A review of past Council Discussion themes is available here.