Title
PUBLIC HEARING - (9:30 a.m. - RECONVENED from October 9, 2013)
Bylaw No. 30-2012 Proposed Amendment to Land Use Bylaw No. 20-2009 to rezone Pt. NE-09-53-01-W5M at Hubbles Lake from CR District to BRR and PC Districts.
Proposed Motions
1) That Bylaw No. 30-2012 receive second reading.
2) That Bylaw No. 30-2012 receive third and final reading.
Body
Administration Recommendations
Administration continues to support Bylaw 30-2012 and recommends that Council give second and third reading to the Bylaw.
Purpose
The developer wishes to re-develop the former Allan Beach campground into a Bareland Recreational Resort.
Reconvened October 23, 2012 Summary
Council recessed the October 9, 2012 Public Hearing requesting clarification from the County's Solicitors regarding the possibility of liability related to a decision that Council may render regarding this redistricting application. The Solicitor's comments are summarized in the following two paragraphs and appear to adequately address the questions raised by Council on October 9th. Further, per Council direction, Administration is not furthering any further public comments regarding this Public Hearing that were received after the original Hearing recessed October 9.
The County's Solicitor notes that when Council is making a decision on a redistricting, Council is generally making a decision that is more administrative/policy in nature. Council has an obligation to hold a public hearing and come to the hearing with an open mind, capable of persuasion. Council needs to hear all the evidence and argument presented at the hearing and then make a decision based on that information. Provided there is some relevant evidence to support the decision, Council's decision will be "lawful", that is, resistant to challenge on appeal or judicial review. Where a decision is at the administrative/policy end of the spectrum, the standard on judicial review is reasonableness; the Court will not disturb the decision just because the court would have reached a different decision provided Council's decision fell within the realm of possible (reasonable) decisions. So, there is a risk that Council's decision may be challenged on judicial review, as there always is, but that risk is very small provided Council had evidence before it on which to base it's decision. Council simply preferred some of the evidence before it to other evidence before it.
The Solicitor also advises that on a redistricting decision, because it is an administrative/policy decision, there is no liability to Council or individual councillors, the County or Administration personally for failing to undertake adequate due diligence. Council is making a decision based on the information before them. Policy decisions are protected from liability under Section 527.2 of the MGA. The Act also provides that there is no liability to the municipality due to Council decisions that may result in reduction in property values.
Original October 9, 2012 Summary
Since the date of First Reading the applicant has revised their re-districting amendment to reflect an increase in the area to be redistricted to PC-Conservation District and dedicated as ER through the subdivision application. The Amendment is shown in Schedule A and Amended Proposed Redistricting Map. Further discussion on the revised amendment is contained in Administration's Report.
The County received an application to redistrict at Pt. NE-9-53-1-W5M (C of T #072 739 421) from the CR - Country Residential District to the BRR - Bareland Recreational Resort District and the PC - Conservation District to accommodate the developer's intention to re-develop the Allan Beach resort into a Bareland Recreational Resort. The developer has submitted a proposal to convert the lands from a campground to a condominiumized recreational resort that would contain 180 recreational vehicle lots.
The resort operated between the early 1950's until 2008 as an on-route campground approval for 183 RV and tent sites along with a publicly accessible beach. Services for the on-route campground were provided by two on-site water wells and septic fields. Formal operations of the on-route campground were ceased in September of 2008 and the site was cleared of all previously existing improvements in preparation for the proposed re-development. A previous rezoning application for a bareland condominium on the same site was defeated by Council in 2010. It however had several significant differences from the current one as it proposed rezoning to Direct Control District rather than BRR District, it contemplated permanent residency cabins similar to single family dwellings rather than seasonal units, and the lot sizes were smaller than the minimum lot size allowed in the BRR District.
Strategic Plan/Policy/Legal/Staff Implications
Municipal Development Plan
In 2010, Council amended the Municipal Development Plan to include policies directing how the Bareland Recreational Resorts should be developed. This proposal complies with Sections 3.20, 3.21, 3.22, and 3.23 of the County's Municipal Development Plan.
Glory Hills Area Structure Plan
The Glory Hills Area Structure Plan was amended in 2010 to accommodate a previous proposal on the subject lands. The amendment allows the use and installation of privately owned communal water and sanitary sewer services. This proposal complies with the relevant sections of the Glory Hills Area Structure Plan (as was amended in 2010).
Land Use Bylaw
The Land Use Bylaw includes a district called the BRR - Bareland Recreational Resort District that contains a number of subdivision and development controls. This proposal, in its current form, meets the intent of the district.
Financial Impact:
N/A
Other
N/A
Alternative Options:
1. Council could table Bylaw No. 30-2012 and request additional information.
2. Council could defeat Bylaw No. 30-2012 and maintain the existing CR-Country Residential District on the property.