PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES

PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES PUBLIC HEARING, TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2002 AT 7:30 P.M. IN THE MUNICIPAL HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS LOCATED AT 301 ST. ANN'S ROAD IN CAMPBELL RIVER, BC. PRESENT: Mayor J. Lornie, Councillors D. Andrews, C. Cornfield, Wm. Harrison, Wm. Matthews, L. Nash, D.D. Raines - Administrator, D. Lang - Corporate Services Director, D. Burns - Municipal Services Director, Wm. Halstead - Clerk, S. Roy, Planner, L. Macara - Recording Secretary. The Mayor explained the Public Hearing procedure. a) Location: 1020 Alder Street South Bylaw: Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw 2936 (1020 Alder Street South) That the Official Community Plan Schedule A be amended for 1020 Alder Street South (That part of Lot B, Sections 29 and 32, Township 1, Comox District, Plan 16595 Except Plans 16897, 16914, 17063, 17625, 3326, and VIP65143 and Except That Part Lying East of Murphy Road, and Except Part in Plans VIP65695 and VIP69765) to be designated from Low Density: 10-25 unit/ha to Commercial/Residential to allow for a commercial/residential building to be constructed. b) Location: 1020 Alder Street South Bylaw Zoning Amendment Bylaw 2937 (1020 Alder Street South) That 1020 Alder Street South (That part of Lot B, Sections 29 and 32, Township 1, Comox District, Plan 16595 Except Plans 16897, 16914, 17063, 17625, 3326, and VIP65143 and Except That Part Lying East of Murphy Road, and Except Part in Plans VIP65695 and VIP69765) be rezoned from R-1, Residential one zone to C-2, Commercial two zone with a covenant registered on title restricting uses to the following: restaurant, retail store, office, bank or other financial institution, personal service establishment, fitness centre, library, veterinary clinic, dwelling units, community care and/or social care facilities. The current proposal is for a commercial building with residential units above. The following correspondence was received: 1. The Lawley's, 302 Niluht Road, in opposition to the proposal. when purchased home 15 years ago, was advised by District staff that subject property was zoned residential property value will be affected already many vacant commercial properties downtown, why do this to a residential area 2. Martin and Maria Van Zeeland, 934 South Alder Street, in opposition to the proposal. covenant is too broad, allowing possible undesirable establishments and facilities possible added cost of policing due to close proximity to elementary school which has proven to be vulnerable to vandalism

MINUTES of the February 26th 2002 Public Hearing, Page 2 of 5 3. Robert and Vicky Humphrey, 1193 South Alder Street, in opposition to the proposal due to increased traffic risk to school 4. Peter R. Schultz, 1041 Galerno Road, in opposition to the proposal due to increased traffic risk to school 5. Joe Cizmic, 1056 South Alder Street, in opposition to the proposal due to increased traffic risk to school 6. Angela Russell, 758 Upland Drive, in opposition to the proposal due to increased traffic risk to school 7. Resident, 530 Rockland, in opposition to the proposal due to increased traffic risk to school 8. Stefica Cizmic, 1056 South Alder Street, in opposition to the proposal due to increased traffic risk to school 9. Crystal M. Martin, 905 South Alder Street, in opposition to the proposal due to increased traffic risk to school 10. G. R. Chan, 875 South Alder Street, in opposition to the proposal due to increased traffic risk to school 11. Shelly Horton, 883 South Alder Street, in opposition to the proposal due to increased traffic risk to school 12. Maria Cizmic, 874 Marina Boulevard, in opposition to the proposal due to increased traffic risk to school 13. C. Stoughton, 859 South Alder Street, in opposition to the proposal due to increased traffic risk to school 14. Karl and Dena Neufeld, 845 South Alder Street, in opposition to the proposal due to increased traffic risk to school 15. Z. Culo, 866 Marina Blvd., in opposition to the proposal due to increased traffic risk to school 16. Sandra Culo, 866 Marina Blvd., in opposition to the proposal due to increased traffic risk to school 17. R. Kolzumi, 1045 South Alder Street, in opposition to the proposal due to increased traffic risk to school 18. Larry and Linda Adams, 975 South Alder Street, in opposition to the proposal due to increased traffic risk to school 19. J. S. and T.G. Webster, 1009 South Alder Street, in opposition to the proposal due to increased traffic risk to school

MINUTES of the February 26th 2002 Public Hearing, Page 3 of 5 20. S. Falconer, 957 South Alder Street, in opposition to the proposal due to increased traffic risk to school 21. Robyn Tonkin, 1129 South Alder Street, in opposition to the proposal due to increased traffic risk to school 22. Charlie Little, 1059 South Alder Street, in opposition to the proposal due to increased traffic risk to school 23. M. Elhorn, 1174 South Alder Street, in opposition to the proposal due to increased traffic risk to school 24. Cam Pierce, 1065 South Alder Street, in opposition to the proposal due to increased traffic risk to school 25. Resident, 670 Ash Street, in opposition to the proposal due to increased traffic risk to school 26. Phillip Long, 1221 Cedar Street, in opposition to the proposal due to increased traffic risk to school 27. J. Shaw, 745 Ralph Hutton, in opposition to the proposal due to increased traffic risk to school 28. A. Booton, 1119 Park Drive, in opposition to the proposal due to increased traffic risk to school 29. G. Booton, 1119 Park Drive, in opposition to the proposal due to increased traffic risk to school 30. Steve and Elsa Martin, 897 South Alder Street, in opposition to the proposal. safety for school children already dangerous pulling onto Alder from Niluht; the increased traffic would create serious pedestrian conditions should remain a quality residential development 30. Resident, 911 Galerno Road, in opposition to the proposal due to increased traffic risk to school 31. Barbara Henshall, 859 Marina Blvd., in opposition to the proposal. residents bought their homes with the belief that it was a residential area, not commercial affect property values traffic would increase, which would not be a positive influence on Rockland school or surrounding homes A petition with 301 signatures in opposition to the proposal was presented. Planner Roy explained the proposal. The Mayor invited public comment.

MINUTES of the February 26th 2002 Public Hearing, Page 4 of 5 Dave Stover, Project Manager, 2100 Arnason Road, spoke in support of the proposal. He updated Council on the two traffic studies which were completed January 24 (2-5 p.m.) and February 20 (7:30-9:30 a.m.). He believes the proposal warrants serious consideration because of sound planning principles supported by the Planning Department and APC; traffic studies which indicate no impact on traffic or level of service; restrictive covenant which will protect from undesirable development; and the development permit which will ensure that the development will look nice. Sandra Culo, 866 Marina Blvd., spoke in support of her letter, noted previously, which opposed the proposal. She spoke on behalf of the school and neighbourhood parents. Larry Adams, 975 South Alder Street, spoke to his letter noted previously. He noted that when he purchased his property 7 months ago, he was told the subject property was residential. He felt that traffic studies didn't account for bike traffic. He expressed concern over possible accidents involving children, and resulting critical incidence stress to emergency workers. He also noted that the OCP doesn't have proposals for other areas, and is concerned that Rockland seems to be developing into a commercial zone. Joe Cizmic, 1056 South Alder Street, spoke to his letter noted previously. He presented a map which showed the area, and the number of residents who were opposed. He said that the OCP indicates that preference is given to neighbourhood friendly development, which this isn't as the neighbourhood does not want the development. He noted a 3 second blind spot on Alder Street between Marina and Niluht. Counsellor Ashley entered the meeting at 8:00 p.m. Marty Cole, School District No. 72, 425 Pinecrest, spoke in opposition to the proposal. He said they are concerned with the safety of children resulting from increased traffic. He noted that the traffic study suggests changing the speed limit in the area from 50km to 30km, and the School Board will be pursuing this. Claire Huntston, 935 Niluht, spoke in opposition to the proposal. She explained that Niluht approaching Alder has a hill, which is very slippery at times, and hard both to go up, and to stop when coming down. She wondered how the developer will address this with his driveway. Phil Cizmic, 2380 Galerno, spoke on behalf of his parents, Ivan and Marija of 874 Marina Blvd., in opposition to the proposal. He expressed concern for children walking to school, and for the 15 to 27 children who wait for a bus at Garnet and Alder. He noted that the traffic studies didn't account for increased traffic on Niluht, or for children having to cross a commercial driveway. He felt studies should be done in April to June, when there is more foot and bike traffic. Cathy Coulter, 105-169 South Island Highway, explained that she owns the property next to the proposed development, and that she is concerned about the children's safety, and thinks there needs to be changes and perhaps traffic lights regardless of whether the development goes ahead. She has mixed feelings about the proposal. Brian Westdorp, 828 Marina Blvd., spoke in opposition to the proposal. He is concerned with children's safety, and that this could become the edge of a wedge for future development. He enjoys his view, and doesn't want to look at the back of a condo. Vicki Humphrey, 1193 South Alder Street, spoke to her letter noted previously. She expressed concern over the existing noise and traffic problems, and said she doesn't want Alder to become another Dogwood.

MINUTES of the February 26th 2002 Public Hearing, Page 5 of 5 Elsa Martin, 897 South Alder Street, spoke to her letter noted previously. neighbouring streets may be used as turnarounds. She also expressed concern that Martin Van Zeeland, 795 Nancy Green Drive, spoke to his letter noted previously. Ernie Kolzumi, 80 Twillingate, spoke on behalf of his parents who live at 1045 South Alder Street, and who are in opposition to the proposal. They wish to maintain Rockland as a quality residential neighbourhood. Linda Adams, 975 South Alder Street, spoke to her letter noted previously. She also expressed concern that doctors offices may attract persons suffering from substance abuse, and didn't want to see needles in the area. There being no further representations from members of the public, nor questions from members of Council, the Public Hearing was closed. The Public Hearing concluded at 8:40 p.m. W.T. HALSTEAD, CLERK.