City under scrutiny
Ombudsperson to look into series of bylaw amendments that helped developer
B.C.’s ombudsperson has launched an investigation into the process used last year by the City of Penticton to permit a controversial residential development.
The complainant alleges the city failed to follow due process when it rolled out a series of bylaw amendments required for a developer to put up two apartment towers at 175 Kinney Ave.
“We’d like the city to back off and revisit the issue,” said Bob Sumner, who asked for the investigation on behalf of himself and other residents of nearby Cherry Lane Towers.
Broadstreet Properties intends to knock down a single-family home on the 3.2-hectatre lot at 175 Kinney Ave. and replace it with 119 apartments in two sixstorey buildings. The property is sandwiched between Cherry Lane Towers and Parkway Elementary School.
The plan was first made public at city council’s meeting on Oct. 18, 2016, when staff put forward two bylaw amendments, one of which changed the property’s zoning from large-lot residential to medium-density residential.
Three months earlier, however, city staff presented council with a pair of proactive bylaw amendments specific to medium-density residential properties to increase the maximum allowable number of units and to increase the maximum allowable height of buildings from four to six storeys.
In his July 4, 2016, report to council, planning manager Blake Laven explained the proposed changes were spurred by recent amendments to the B.C. Building Code and by interest from unspecified developers.
The proposed changes were unopposed at a public hearing July 18, and council unanimously approved them the same day.
Sumner alleges, however, that city staff at the time must have been aware of the proposed redevelopment of 175 Kinney Ave., and therefore he and his neighbours should have been notified and given a chance to comment on the changes.
Had they been told about the broader plan, he continued, the public hearing would have been a much different scene.
“It’s our opinion that the city acted inappropriately in rezoning 175 Kinney Ave. It was done without due notice to surrounding residents,” said Sumner. That’s the first element of his complaint.
Instead, neighbours weren’t given a chance to weigh in until Nov. 1, when council hosted a raucous public hearing on the bylaw amendments specific to 175 Kinney Ave. that were introduced at the Oct. 18 council meeting.
Opposition was loudest from residents of Cherry Lane Towers, who raised concerns about increased traffic in the school zone, impacts on property values, and the property’s long-time designation as future park space.
“At the public hearing, we had over 500 letters of support, we were speaking in front of city council for three hours,” Sumner recalled, “and the next night city council approved the rezoning in about two minutes.”
The discussion actually lasted about 30 minutes, but Sumner alleges the outcome – a 6-1 vote in favour with Mayor Andrew Jakubeit the lone dissenter – is evidence council failed to properly consider public opinion and therefore didn’t follow proper process on the rezoning. That’s the second element of his complaint.
Sumner understands the Office of the Ombudsperson can only make recommendations in cases where it finds evidence of procedural unfairness, but hopes such a finding would cause the city to put the brakes on the development, work on which has not yet begun.
“I guess we’re getting used to the fact (the project) could happen, but it still bothers us,” said Sumner.
City manager Peter Weeber, who’s only been on the job since January, declined to refute any of Sumner’s specific allegations, but stood behind the process used by staff prior to his arrival.
“Notification for OCP and zoning amendment applications are completed in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act and Penticton’s development procedures and delegation bylaw,” he said in a statement.
“The city is working with the ombudsperson on this matter and we will await their response once we have had an opportunity to respond.”
The Office of the Ombudsperson does not comment on its investigations.
Tomorrow: In the second and final part of this series, we explore an apparent coincidence that helped set the stage for another controversial development in Penticton.