Citizens, council on opposite sides

Dear Editor: Your recent online survey showed again that the residents of Penticton and mayor and council are on opposite sides of the recent City of Penticton procedure namely the Official Community Plan. The mayor stated in a recent article that both he and council are accessible and responsive to comments.

Residents and non-residents alike have certainly made their comments known in regard to the Skaha Park debacle and were ignored. Residents commented on the Kinney Avenue proposal and were again overruled.

COP’s ideas for a vibrant community are not appreciated by the majority of residents and no amount of money thrown at so-called communication and engagement endeavours will restore our trust in the present government.

The money earmarked for a new OCP plan will do much more for Penticton when applied to our crumbling infrastructure. Tourists will not remember our vibrant downtown Main Street but they will remember the paid parking at lakes and beaches and the inconvenience of no water in their rooms because a water main ruptured... again. We know now from past experience that our input and comments have no value when compared to one developer’s proposal who gladly accepts the tax holiday and leaves us with the burden of lost revenue. Joan Eschbach Penticton suit the zoning in the OCP (i.e.: the recent Kinney Ave zoning amendment.)

Developers are entitled to request a zoning amendment. If an application to amend the OCP zoning is made, the council is required under the Municipal Charter to advertise and notify residents within a radius of the zoning.

The request for rezoning should be carefully reviewed by council, specifically as to how the zoning on the property was determined by previous councils.

What was the previous council’s reasoning for the zoning, next to a school, was the decision to the zoning based on the properties on that street, plus possible traffic congestion with increased density if zoned to accommodate higher density? Staff should definitely bring the reasoning from the existing OCP to council’s attention when zoning changes are requested.

I question the announcement that there hasn’t been an OCP review for 15 years, as stated above the Charter requires it be reviewed and endorsed.

That being said it still requires a public process.

During my last term on council (2005 2008) a 20-year OCP project was undertaken (the first in the Province), which took several months of public consultation to complete. Coun. Garry Litke was appointed as chair. The most controversial issue that came out of that was the height of buildings. Twelve floors was the decision put into the 20-year vision of city growth. The incoming council approved 30-plus floors for a development on Martin Street.

I can’t necessarily agree that a review of the OCP needs to take almost two years at a cost of $250,000. May I suggest to avoid that cost that your 17-person team be made up of past employees and councillors who have “been there, done that.” Jake Kimberley

Pentitcton