[1. Opening Statement]
[00:00:08]
AND I'D LIKE TO BEGIN BY ACKNOWLEDGING THAT THE CITY OF YELLOWKNIFE IS LOCATED IN CHIEF DRYGEESE TERRITORY.FROM TIME IMMEMORIAL, IT'S BEEN THE TRADITIONAL LAND OF THE YELLOWKNIFE DENE FIRST NATION.
WE RESPECT THE HISTORY, LANGUAGES AND CULTURES OF ALL OTHER INDIGENOUS PEOPLES, INCLUDING THE NORTH SLAVE METIS AND ALL FIRST NATIONS, METIS AND INUIT, WHOSE PRESENCE CONTINUES TO ENRICH OUR VIBRANT COMMUNITY.
[2. Approval of the agenda.]
MS. BASSI-KELLETT ANYTHING FURTHER TO ADD TO THE AGENDA? THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MADAM CHAIR.THANK YOU. NEXT, WE HAVE DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTERESTS IN THE GENERAL NATURE THEREOF.
[3. Disclosure of pecuniary interest and the general nature thereof.]
DOES ANY MEMBER HAVE A PECUNIARY INTEREST TODAY? SEEING NONE. NEXT WE HAVE A MEMORANDUM REGARDING WHETHER TO APPROVE A PROPOSED NATURAL RESOURCE EXTRACTION USE ON A PORTION OF LOT 4 BLOCK 316 LOCATED SOUTH OF[4. A memorandum regarding whether to approve a proposed “Natural Resource Extraction” use on a portion of Lot 4, Block 316, (located south of Giant Mine on the west bank of Yellowknife Bay) as a conditionally permitted use in the GM ‐ Growth Management Zone, under Zoning By‐law No. 4404, as amended.]
GIANT MINE ON THE WEST BANK OF YELLOWKNIFE BAY AS A CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED USE IN THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT ZONE UNDER ZONING BYLAW NUMBER 4404 AS AMENDED. AND WE HAVE MR. KENNY [INAUDIBLE] WHO WILL DO A PRESENTATION.BUT MS. BASSI-KELLETT, WOULD YOU LIKE TO INTRODUCE THE ITEM? THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MADAM CHAIR.
HOWEVER, RECOGNIZING THAT TOPOGRAPHY OF THE AREA QUARRYING IS POTENTIALLY PERMITTED AS WELL.
UNDER OUR ZONING BYLAW, THE LANDS ARE ZONED GROWTH MANAGEMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCE EXTRACTION IS A CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED USE, WHICH BRINGS THIS MATTER BEFORE GPC TODAY.
THE DETAILED CONDITIONS THAT ARE CONTAINED IN THE MEMO ARE IN KEEPING WITH THE GUIDING LEGISLATIVE DOCUMENTS, BOTH THE ZONING BYLAW AND THE COMMUNITY PLAN AND TYPICALLY MANY DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS THAT THE CITY ENTERS INTO WITH DEVELOPERS OFTEN CONTAIN THIS LEVEL OF CONDITION AND MORE.
THANK YOU. AND I'LL ASK KENNY IF YOU'D LIKE TO COME TO THE SPEAKER.
AND IF YOU JUST PRESS THE ON BUTTON.
SO THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO PRESENT.
THERE'S A NUMBER OF PROPERTIES THAT HAVE BEEN PLACED IN THE SPECIAL MANAGEMENT ZONE THAT ARE PRIVATELY HELD, THAT ARE THE CITY IS NOW DESIGNATED AS FOR THEMSELVES AS FUTURE GROWTH. THE PROPERTY, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WE'RE TALKING ABOUT RIGHT NOW IS IS LARGELY LARGELY UNDULATING, LARGELY UNUSABLE IN ITS CURRENT FORM. WHAT WE HAD ORIGINALLY PROPOSED WAS A SIMPLE GRADING PLAN, RECOGNIZING THAT I WAS NOT AS ACTIVE AS I SHOULD HAVE BEEN IN THE COMMUNITY PLAN.
I MISSED THE OPPORTUNITY TO IDENTIFY THESE PRIVATELY HELD LANDS AT THAT TIME.
SO THE THE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM ADMINISTRATION ARE WHAT I'D LIKE TO DISCUSS TODAY.
THE ZONING BYLAW ITSELF, THE 4404 AND THE NEWLY ADOPTED BYLAWS STATE THAT IN ADDITION TO MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS BYLAW, IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE APPLICANT TO OBTAIN ALL OTHER APPROVALS OR LICENSES THAT MAY BE REQUIRED BY THE CITY, TERRITORY OR FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS OR AGENCIES.
SO INHERENTLY, ALL CONDITIONS PLACED ON THIS, ON THIS, ON THE APPROVAL HERE ARE ALREADY FALL UNDER FEDERAL OR TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION.
THERE ARE SPECIFIC GUIDELINES IN THE MACKENZIE VALLEY LAND AND WATER BOARD THAT REQUIRE YOU TO OR STIPULATE WHEN THE REQUIREMENT FOR A LAND USE PERMIT OR A WATER LICENSE BE OBTAINED.
IN MY OPINION, THIS IN THIS CASE, A WATER LICENSE IS NOT REQUIRED.
[00:05:04]
IF AN APPLICATION NEEDS TO BE MADE, IT HAS TO BE MADE.RECOMMENDATIONS D THROUGH K THESE ALL FALL UNDER THE TERRITORIAL [INAUDIBLE] LANDS ACT AND SPECIFICALLY THE NORTHERN LAND USE GUIDELINES FOR PERMITS AND QUARRYING.
EVERY ITEM ON THERE IS CONTAINED WITHIN THAT DOCUMENT.
I BROUGHT THE DOCUMENT WITH ME, BUT IT CAN BE FOUND ONLINE.
I DON'T THINK ANY OF THOSE NEED TO BE CALLED OUT EITHER.
THEY ARE INHERENT IN OTHER LEGISLATION THAT IS NOT HELD BY THE CITY, NOR IS IT, NOR DO THEY HAVE JURISDICTION TO ENFORCE IT. THE SECOND PIECE THAT OR POINT NUMBER TWO, HAUL ROUTES AND TRAFFIC GENERATED BY THE PROPOSED RESOURCE.
THE CITY WOULD LIKE A QUALIFIED PERSONNEL TO PREPARE A TRAFFIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT.
AGAIN, THIS DOESN'T FALL IN THE JURISDICTION OF THE CITY AND THEY ACTUALLY STATE THAT IN THE JUSTIFICATION REPORT THAT IS NOT IN THEIR PURVIEW.
WE DON'T TOUCH CITY LAND OTHER THAN THE LAND THAT WE OWN.
WE ENTER DIRECTLY ONTO THE HIGHWAY.
I THINK THAT'S NWT HIGHWAY'S JURISDICTION, NOT CITY JURISDICTION.
I'M LOOKING TO GRADE THE PROPERTY, HAVE A USABLE SECTION OF IT.
WE'VE MADE CONCESSIONS SUCH THAT THE WATERFRONT IS NOT IMPACTED.
EXCUSE ME? THERE'S NO VISUAL IMPACT.
WE HAVE NO INTENTION OF OPERATING THIS AS A TRADITIONAL QUARRY AND THE TERM OF FIVE YEARS WAS DERIVED BY THE APPLICATION OF CURRENT EXISTING QUARRIES QUANTITY VOLUME REMOVED PER ANNUM AND WE WON'T BE OPERATING AS A TRADITIONAL QUARRY.
SO I'D LIKE TO HAVE THAT THAT TERM DOUBLED TO TEN YEARS WITH A POSSIBLE EXTENSION AFTER THAT.
THIS ISN'T SOMETHING THAT WE'RE LOOKING.
WE'RE NOT IN THE QUARRYING BUSINESS.
WE'RE JUST LOOKING TO GRADE THE ROCK, OR GRADE THE LAND.
MAKING SURE I COVERED EVERYTHING OFF HERE.
THE COMMUNITY PLAN ALSO STATES THAT THE CITY CAN PERMIT A QUARRY IF THE AREA IN THE AREA, IF THE PROPONENT CAN PROVE THE MARKET NEED AND A NEW QUARRY FOLLOWS ALL GOVERNMENT ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS, ALL GOVERNMENT, NOT CITY, SPECIFICALLY ALL GOVERNMENT.
[INAUDIBLE] I THINK THAT'S ALL I'VE GOT.
I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S QUESTIONS OR WHAT PROCESS IS HERE.
THANK YOU. YEAH, WE'LL JUMP TO QUESTIONS.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE PRESENTER? COUNCILLOR CONGA. YEAH.
THANKS FOR COMING IN TODAY, KENNY.
IT IS PRETTY MUCH UNUSABLE LAND WITHOUT DOING SOMETHING TO IT.
AND I WOULD AGREE THAT IT YOU'RE NOT REALLY RUNNING A QUARRY OPERATION OUT THERE.
FROM WHAT I CAN TELL, YOU'RE TRYING TO GRADE THE PROPERTY.
WERE THERE ANY ALTERNATIVES PROVIDED TO YOU WHERE YOU COULD GO IN THERE AND GRADE IT? I MEAN, I THINK THAT MAYBE ADMINISTRATION CAN CONFIRM THIS.
THAT STARTED TO HAPPEN FIRST BEFORE THE NEXT STEP.
I MEAN, YOU NEED TO KIND OF GRADE LAND AND STUFF BEFORE YOU KIND OF GET GOING.
I MEAN, THEY'RE GRADING IN THERE THAT'S BEEN ONGOING FOR AT LEAST A DECADE, I WOULD THINK.
WHY, WHEN YOU'RE TALKING WITH THE ADMINISTRATION, DID THEY GIVE YOU ANY REASONING WHY YOU COULDN'T DO THE SAME AS WHAT'S ALREADY BEEN DONE AROUND TOWN? I GUESS WE COULD ALSO ASK THAT QUESTION TO ADMINISTRATION IF THERE'S ALTERNATIVES.
YEAH, YEAH. KENNY, DID YOU WANT TO.
[00:10:03]
I GOT A QUICK COMMENT TO THAT. SURE.SO COUNCIL APPROVED, I THINK LAST YEAR, MAYBE THE YEAR BEFORE, A POTENTIAL QUARRY FOR [INAUDIBLE].
THE PROPOSAL YOU'RE SEEING IN FRONT OF YOU IS 300,000 CUBIC METERS.
A QUARRY EXPANSION FOR ANY OF THE EXISTING QUARRIES IS DOUBLE THAT.
SO THAT'S WHY I SAY, ONE, WE WON'T BE OPERATING AS A TRADITIONAL QUARRY.
WE DON'T HAVE LAND FOR EXPANSION BEYOND THIS THIS RESOURCE EXTRACTION.
AND IT DOESN'T REALLY FIT THE CRITERIA.
THE RESPONSE OR THE DISCUSSIONS WITH ADMINISTRATION CAME WERE FOUNDED IN THE COMMUNITY PLAN.
THE COMMUNITY PLAN IS VERY PRESCRIPTIVE ON WHAT COULD HAPPEN IN THAT LAND.
THE ALTERNATE WOULD HAVE BEEN TO GO THROUGH AN AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN INVOLVING THE TERRITORIAL MINISTER AND ALL THE PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSULTATIONS THAT GO ALONG WITH THAT. MS. BASSI-KELLETT [INAUDIBLE] CAN SPEAK TO THE OTHER ALTERNATIVES TO WHAT'S BEING PRESENTED TODAY? THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I WILL ASK MS. WHITE TO RESPOND. AND BEFORE I DO, I WILL JUST REAFFIRM THAT WHAT WE WERE DOING WAS IN KEEPING IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE COMMUNITY PLAN.
AND SO ONE OPTION THAT ALSO EXISTED WAS TO SEEK TO AMEND THE COMMUNITY PLAN AS WELL.
SO THAT WAS ONE THAT WAS ALSO ON THE BOOKS.
BUT I'LL ASK MS. WHITE IF SHE CAN SPEAK TO THE BACKGROUND CONTEXT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE QUESTION.
AND AS BOTH KENNY AND THE CITY MANAGER HAVE IDENTIFIED, A NUMBER OF OPTIONS WERE OUT THERE, BOTH A COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT TO TAKE IT OUT OF THE CURRENT DESIGNATION INTO SOMETHING NEW.
BUT IF YOU READ THE POLICIES IN THIS SECTION OF THE COMMUNITY PLAN, IT WOULD ALSO REQUIRE THE AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AS KENNY IDENTIFIED, AS WELL AS WHAT IS THAT FINAL DEVELOPMENT GOING TO BE? SO THE STIPULATION IS NO NEW DEVELOPMENT UNLESS THAT PERMANENT DEVELOPMENT IS ESTABLISHED.
AND IN THIS POLICY SECTION OF THE COMMUNITY PLAN, IT DOESN'T ALLOW FOR THAT END.
THE ONLY PERMITTED USE IS THAT QUARRY USE.
THANK YOU. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS, COUNCILLOR WILLIAMS? NOT FOR THE PRESENTER I'LL WAIT TILL ADMINISTRATION.
YOU'RE NOT LOOKING TO ACTUALLY QUARRY THIS SITE.
IT'S A IT'S A GREETING OPERATION IS THE ACTUAL INTENTION.
SO IF A QUARRY ISN'T THE INTENDED USE, I GUESS I WOULD JUST ASK.
I MEAN, I THINK THE ANSWER IS A BIT OBVIOUS, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO GET IT ON THE RECORD.
LIKE WHY THEN IS ASKING FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMMUNITY PLAN NOT THE DIRECTION YOU'RE GOING WITH THIS? AND I REALIZE THAT DOING SO WILL BE A MORE TIME CONSUMING PROCESS.
POTENTIALLY IT COULD HAVE A POTENTIAL DIFFICULTIES.
BUT ASIDE FROM THAT, I'M WONDERING WHY NOT GO DOWN THAT ROAD? IS THERE IS THERE A TIME CONSTRAINT HERE THAT YOU'RE OPERATING UNDER? YEAH, IF YOU COULD KIND OF ELABORATE A BIT ON THAT.
SO THE AMENDMENT TO THE COMMUNITY PLAN DOESN'T JUST COME WITH A CHANGE IN RE DESIGNATION REZONING.
IT COMES WITH AN ACTUAL AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN.
AND I DON'T REALLY HAVE A PLAN TO DO ANYTHING OTHER THAN LEVEL THE PROPERTY SO IT'S USABLE.
I DON'T PLAN ON CHANGING THE USE THAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE OTHER THAN EXPANDING ITS USABLE AREA.
THERE'S NO DEVELOPMENT PLANNED IN THERE.
THERE'S THERE'S NO NOTHING THAN WE'RE ALREADY USING IT FOR.
THE QUESTION THAT WOULD FOLLOW THEN FOR ME IS WHY INVEST THE MONEY IN GRADING THE SITE WITHOUT A PLAN? I MEAN, THAT SEEMS LIKE A PRETTY LARGE AMOUNT OF MONEY TO PUT OUT TO DO SOMETHING WITH A PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT YOU DON'T INTEND TO USE.
IT'S NOT A LARGE AMOUNT OF MONEY IF YOU STRETCH IT OVER 10, MAYBE 20 YEARS.
I MEAN, DO YOU HAVE A GENERAL IDEA? IS IT TO MAKE THE LOT MORE SELLABLE? IS IT TO OPEN IT UP FOR A POTENTIAL USE THAT IT'S ANY CONSTRUCTION THAT OWNS THE SITE? IT'S OKAY.
[00:15:02]
SO THE IDEA IS JUST TO GRADE THE SITE OVER TIME, BUT NOT REALLY HAVE A PLAN FOR IT.I MEAN, THERE MUST BE SOME KIND OF REASONING BEHIND THIS.
SO THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION IS THE ONLY LAKEFRONT AVAILABLE LAKEFRONT PROPERTY IN YELLOWKNIFE YOU CAN FIND RIGHT NOW THAT ISN'T IT DOESN'T HAVE A DEVELOPMENT, DOESN'T HAVE A HOUSE, EVERYTHING ON IT. SO THIS ONE ALREADY HAS A WE CALLED IT HERE, I CALL IT THE SHACK, BUT IT'S GOT A HOUSE ON IT.
IT'S JUST LARGELY UNUSABLE PROPERTY.
NO [INAUDIBLE] IS NOT A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPER.
WE DO MINDSET, CONSTRUCTION AND DECONSTRUCTION.
RIGHT NOW I HAVE NO INTENTION OF CHANGING THE DESIGNATION AND ACTUALLY WITHIN THE COMMUNITY PLAN AND WITHIN THE ZONING BYLAWS, THERE'S NOTHING I CAN DO THERE OTHER THAN GRADE THE PROPERTY.
I MAY WANT TO PUT A NEW HOUSE THERE FOR MYSELF AND MY FAMILY, BUT I WOULDN'T BE.
I THINK THAT'S ACTUALLY STATED IN THESE DOCUMENTS AS WELL.
FORGIVE ME IF I'M KIND OF BEATING A DEAD HORSE HERE, BUT I MEAN, YOU'RE STATING THAT WATERFRONT PROPERTY IS DESIRABLE IN THIS CASE TO [INAUDIBLE] CONSTRUCTION.
WHY IS WATERFRONT PROPERTY DESIRABLE? I MEAN, I GUESS THE POINT THAT I'M MAKING IS, IS OBVIOUSLY A QUARRY COULD GO PRETTY MUCH ANYWHERE AND THERE'S PLACES IN THE COMMUNITY PLAN THEY'RE ZONED FOR QUARRYING.
YOU'RE LOOKING TO GRADE A PROPERTY CLOSE TO THE WATERFRONT.
SO WHY DOES [INAUDIBLE] IN THIS CASE WANT WATERFRONT PROPERTY FOR THEIR INDUSTRIAL USES THAT YOU'VE KIND OF LISTED THERE? LIKE WHAT? WHAT'S THE ADVANTAGE OF HAVING WATERFRONT AS OPPOSED TO JUST HAVING A GRADED LOT IN THE BUSINESS DISTRICT, FOR EXAMPLE.
OKAY, SO IT'S [LAUGHTER] FAIR ENOUGH.
OK NO, I JUST KIND OF WANTED TO GET AN IDEA OF WHERE WE'RE GOING HERE.
SO I GUESS WITH ALL THAT ON THE TABLE THEN, I MEAN, WHY APPLY TO DO THIS RATHER THAN GO THE COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT? I MEAN, WHY GRADE THE SITE IF YOU'RE NOT 100% CERTAIN YOU'RE EVEN GOING TO BE ABLE TO USE IT IN THE FUTURE? A FUTURE COUNCIL COULD THEORETICALLY SAY, NO, WE DON'T WANT THIS SITE DEVELOPED, SO WHY GO TO THAT EFFORT WITHOUT CERTAINTY AS TO WHAT YOU CAN DO WITH THE LAND? KENNY. WELL, I WOULD SAY THERE'S NO CERTAINTY IN EITHER PROCESS.
THE AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN MAY BE REJECTED BY TERRITORIAL CITY OR RESIDENTS.
THIS IS A PATH FORWARD WHERE WE CAN ACTUALLY SEE SOME PROGRESS.
THE REST OF MY QUESTIONS ARE FOR EVAN.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANKS, KENNY FOR FOR COMING TODAY TO HELP EXPLAIN THE PROPOSAL.
SO IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU ARE NOT IN FAVOR OF HAVING THE CITY REQUIRE THAT YOU GO OUT AND GET A LAND USE PERMIT AND WATER LICENSE AS PART OF THE CONDITIONS.
CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHY YOU WOULD OBJECT TO THE CITY MAKING THAT A REQUIREMENT AND WHETHER YOU OBJECT TO BOTH THE LAND USE PERMIT AND WATER LICENSE OR JUST ONE, AND WHAT THE PROBLEM WITH THAT WOULD BE? KENNY.
I'VE BEEN PRETTY PROACTIVE IN THE IN THE DEVELOPMENT APPROACH HERE.
IT IS THE LAND AND WATER BOARDS.
AND I THINK I WOULD EXTEND THAT TO ALL PROVISIONS IN HERE.
IT IS NOT THE CITY'S JURISDICTION.
[00:20:02]
LICENSES A COPY OF THOSE APPLICATIONS, APPROVALS AND LICENSE BE PROVIDED TO THE CITY.WHEN YOU WHEN YOU SAY THAT A WATER LICENSE WILL NOT BE REQUIRED, UNDER WHAT CRITERIA WILL IT NOT BE REQUIRED? THE MACKENZIE VALLEY LAND AND WATER BOARD HAS A SET OF GUIDELINES BY WHICH THEY STATE HERE IS WHERE A WATER LICENSE IS REQUIRED.
HERE'S WHERE A LAND USE PERMIT IS REQUIRED.
AND IF YOU DON'T MEET THESE BUT YOU'RE UNCOMFORTABLE, YOU CAN HAVE A DISCUSSION WITH THEM.
SO I JUST WENT OFF THE GUIDELINES AND CONVERSATIONS WITH THE LAND AND WATER BOARD.
OBVIOUSLY, NO DEVELOPMENT COULD HAPPEN WITHOUT ACKNOWLEDGMENT THAT WE ARE IN COMPLIANCE.
ARE YOU SAYING THEN THAT IF IF THIS IS INCLUDED AS A CONDITION FOR THE CITY'S APPROVAL, THAT THE LAND AND WATER BOARD WOULD REFUSE TO CONDUCT A WATER LICENSE OR LAND USE PERMIT FOR THIS BECAUSE IT DOESN'T MEET THE CRITERIA.
SO I GUESS TWO ANSWERS TO THAT.
AN APPLICATION FOR WATER LICENSE IS NOT REQUIRED, IN MY OPINION.
BUT YOU DON'T MAKE AN APPLICATION FOR SOMETHING, YOU KNOW, THAT IS NOT REQUIRED.
THE SECOND PIECE IT'S IT'S FAIRLY COST PROHIBITIVE.
THERE'S A PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT PERIOD FOR THIS.
CAN YOU JUST CLARIFY, DO YOU OWN ALL THE WAY UP TO THE WATERFRONT? IS THE [INAUDIBLE].
THOSE ARE ALL MY QUESTIONS AT THIS POINT.
THANK YOU. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE PRESENTER? SEEING NONE.
THANK YOU AGAIN, KENNY, FOR COMING AND PRESENTING TODAY.
WITH THAT, I WILL OPEN IT UP TO QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS FROM COUNCIL.
A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS FOR ADMIN JUST TO START OUT HERE.
I'M SURE LOTS OF MY COLLEAGUES HAVE SIMILAR QUESTIONS OR OTHER QUESTIONS.
I'M JUST CURIOUS TO HEAR FROM ADMIN.
SO WE WE HAVE A SITUATION HERE WHERE THERE'S A PRIVATELY OWNED PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT I WOULD SAY IS EFFECTIVELY KIND OF BEEN STRANDED BY THE COMMUNITY PLAN IN THE SENSE THAT IT IS PRIVATELY OWNED, BUT IT HASN'T BEEN DESIGNATED FOR A USE.
SO I KNOW THIS IS GOING TO SOUND LIKE A BIT OF A FUNNY QUESTION, BUT FROM KIND OF A POLICY PERSPECTIVE, WHAT IS THE TYPICAL WAY ANY MUNICIPALITY WOULD MANAGE A SITUATION LIKE THIS? AND I GUESS WHAT I'M TRYING TO GET AT IS WHY DID WE CREATE THIS SITUATION IN OUR COMMUNITY PLAN? AND I'M AWARE THAT I'M ONE OF THE PEOPLE THAT APPROVED THE COMMUNITY PLAN.
SO HOW DO WE GENERALLY HOW DOES A MUNICIPALITY DEAL WITH A SITUATION LIKE THAT AND WHY IS A SITUATION LIKE THAT CREATED IN THE FIRST PLACE? IS MY FIRST QUESTION.
I THINK THERE'S ABOUT EIGHT PARCELS OF LAND LIKE THAT.
MS. BASSI-KELLETT THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE QUESTION AND DEFINITELY A SPECIAL MANAGEMENT ZONE.
CERTAINLY FLEXIBILITY GOING FORWARD IS SOMETHING THAT HAPPENS.
THESE DOCUMENTS ARE ITERATIVE.
THEY ARE VERY CLEAR POLICY DOCUMENTS, OUR COMMUNITY PLAN AND ZONING BYLAW.
BUT THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY FOR AMENDMENT AS WE GO FORWARD.
SO THAT'S A LITTLE BIT OF THE THINKING IN THE HISTORY ON THIS.
I'LL ASK MS. WHITE, WHO'S OUR EXPERT ON PLANNING TO SPEAK TO THE BROAD CONTEXT.
AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT IT IS, IS A PLANNING PROCESS.
WHAT LAND DO WE NEED NOW AND HAVE DESIGNATED FOR USES NOW? WHAT CAN WE SERVICE NOW? WHAT IS ACCESSIBLE NOW AND WHAT ARE WE GOING TO NEED IN THE FUTURE? BECAUSE MOST MUNICIPALITIES, YOUR GOAL IS TO GROW OVER TIME, RIGHT? AND PROVIDE RESOURCES AND SERVICES FOR THE RESIDENTS THAT YOU WERE THEN HOPEFULLY GOING TO HAVE COME TO YOUR COMMUNITY.
[00:25:06]
FOR FUTURE GROWTH.SOME PROVINCES AND LOCATIONS ACTUALLY MANDATE THAT THAT YOU HAVE 5 TO 10 YEARS MINIMUM OF LAND DESIGNATED FOR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN YOUR COMMUNITY, AND THEN YOU HAVE UP TO 20 OR 25 YEARS OF LAND AVAILABLE FOR THAT GROWTH CONTEXT.
AND I WAS NOT HERE WHEN THE COMMUNITY PLAN WAS APPROVED, BUT THIS WOULD FALL IN LINE WITH THOSE STANDARDS THAT ARE PRETTY MUCH ACROSS THE BOARD IN GOOD LAND USE PLANNING PRACTICES. SO I WOULDN'T SAY IT'S NOT DESIGNATED FOR ANYTHING.
OKAY. THANKS. AND SO THIS SITE IS DESIGNATED FOR FUTURE GROWTH.
WHICH IS? WHICH IS IT IS WHAT IT IS.
SO WE HAVE A PROPERTY OWNER COMING HERE AND SAYING, WELL, THEY'D LIKE TO DEVELOP IT NOW EFFECTIVELY.
AND SO KNOWING THAT WE HAVE THIS SITUATION, I MEAN, I GUESS ADMINISTRATION HAS LAID OUT TO THE PROPERTY OWNER THE TWO OPTIONS YOU CAN APPLY TO DO THIS AS A QUARRY UNDER THE COMMUNITY PLAN AS IS.
WE'RE GOING TO DETERMINE WHAT THE FUTURE GROWTH IS NOW.
I MEAN, WHAT IS THE TYPICAL BEST PRACTICE WHEN YOU HAVE A DEVELOPER WHO OWNS LAND THAT'S THAT'S DESIGNATED FOR FUTURE GROWTH, IS IT? I MEAN, DO COUNCILS TYPICALLY SAY, NO, YOU CAN'T DEVELOP IT UNTIL THE COMMUNITY PLAN SAYS YOU CAN? OR IS AN AMENDMENT PROCESS THE TYPICAL WAY TO HANDLE THIS? BECAUSE IT SEEMS TO ME THAT IT WOULDN'T.
THE ONE TYPICAL WAY YOU WOULDN'T DEAL WITH THIS IS SIMPLY TO SAY, WELL, WE'LL DEVELOP IT IN A WAY THAT KIND OF COMES AT IT SORT OF INDIRECTLY AND AS IF, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE THAT'S REALLY WHAT'S BEING APPLIED FOR HERE IS KIND OF AN INDIRECT USE, LIKE THERE'S QUARRYING IS BEING APPLIED FOR BECAUSE IT FITS WITHIN THE CURRENT COMMUNITY PLAN.
SO IT SEEMS TO ME THAT HAS JUST STRUCK ME AS A LITTLE BIT PECULIAR AND I'M CURIOUS TO HEAR FROM ADMINISTRATION WHAT THEY THINK IS THE BEST PATH FORWARD HERE IN TERMS OF POLICY PERSPECTIVE, HOW THE MUNICIPALITY SHOULD DEAL WITH THIS END BECAUSE IF THERE WAS OTHER DEVELOPERS LOOKING TO DO SIMILAR THINGS IN THE COMMUNITY, HOW WOULD WE GENERALLY RESPOND? ARE WE GOING TO TELL EVERYONE, JUST SAY IT'S A QUARRY FOR NOW OR ARE WE DO WE HAVE KIND OF A POLICY PERSPECTIVE THAT WE'D LIKE TO FOLLOW AND WOULD FOLLOW WITH OTHER DEVELOPERS? MS. BASSI-KELLETT.
MS. WHITE. THANK YOU AGAIN FOR A REALLY GOOD QUESTION.
SO THE BEST LAND USE PLANNING PRACTICE WOULD ACTUALLY BE FOR A MUNICIPALITY TO UNDERTAKE A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW ABOUT FIVE YEARS AFTER YOUR COMMUNITY PLAN IS IN PLACE TO REVIEW YOUR SERVICING CAPACITY, YOUR GROWTH NEEDS.
AND IF WE LOOK AT THE RECENT STATISTICS, THE CITY OF YELLOWKNIFE IS GROWING.
SO THIS IS SOMETHING WE SHOULD BE LOOKING AT IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF YEARS TO REVIEW OUR POLICIES AND SEE IF THERE ARE SOME DESIGNATIONS THAT ARE APPROPRIATELY AND EFFECTIVE TO CHANGE GOING FORWARD.
AND THAT SHOULD BE A CITY EXERCISE.
WE ARE GROWING AND SHOULD BE CONSIDERING THIS.
ALTERNATIVELY, THE NEXT BEST OPTION WOULD BE THAT AN APPLICANT WHO HAD A LARGE PARCEL OF LAND, WHO WAS DIRECTLY ADJACENT, WOULD APPROACH THE MUNICIPALITY AND THEY WOULD DO THAT SIMILAR WORK.
SO THEN YOU HAVE TO GO THROUGH THAT PUBLIC PROCESS AND WE'RE NOT THE APPROVAL AUTHORITY.
SO IT WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE NWT BECAUSE YOU'RE CHANGING YOUR COMMUNITY PLAN.
SO IT'S ALWAYS BEST IF A MUNICIPALITY TAKES THAT INITIATIVE AND ON REGULAR CYCLE AND INTERVAL.
THANKS. I'M GOING TO SHIFT GEARS A LITTLE BIT HERE.
SO AS NOTED BY THE APPLICANT, THERE'S A COUPLE OF PROVISIONS PROPOSED HERE BY ADMINISTRATION RELATED TO PERMITTING BY OTHER ENTITIES. I'M CURIOUS FROM ADMINISTRATIONS PERSPECTIVE WHAT THE PURPOSE OF THESE IS, KNOWING THAT THE CITY DOESN'T HAVE JURISDICTION TO TELL ANY OF THESE AUTHORITIES TO ISSUE OR NOT ISSUE PERMITS OR FOR THAT MATTER, EVEN GO THROUGH A PROCESS TO DO SO.
MS. BASSI-KELLETT. MS. WHITE. GREAT.
[00:30:07]
THAT MAY BE REQUIRED DUE TO THE LOCATION ADJACENT TO GREAT SLAVE LAKE.IN ADDITION, WHILE I UNDERSTAND THE APPLICANT HAS HAD CONVERSATIONS, OBVIOUSLY SO HAS THE MUNICIPALITY, BOTH STAFF AND MYSELF, WITH THE WATER BOARD AND WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF LANDS, WHO IDENTIFIED TO US THAT IT VERY WELL MAY REQUIRE AND THEY DON'T MAKE THAT DETERMINATION UNTIL AN APPLICATION HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BECAUSE THAT'S WHEN THEY HAVE ALL THE INFORMATION FOR THEM TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION.
AND YOU'RE RIGHT, THE MUNICIPALITY IS NOT THE APPROVAL AUTHORITY, BUT IT IS OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO ENSURE THAT ANY DEVELOPMENT THAT OCCURS OCCURS IN ACCORDANCE WITH OUR POLICIES.
SO THIS ISN'T SAYING THAT WE APPROVE IT.
SO THERE'S A NUMBER OF ITEMS THAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE A WATER LICENSE.
AND IF A WATER LICENSE ISN'T REQUIRED, WHICH IT MAY NOT BE, THEN THE LAND USE PERMIT.
AGAIN, WE'VE HAD THE CONVERSATIONS.
IT'S LIKELY A LAND USE PERMIT WOULD BE REQUIRED AND THE ITEMS ASSOCIATED WITH THAT, AND REGARDLESS OF IF IT'S A FULL SCALE QUARRY, THERE SHOULD STILL BE OR THE MUNICIPALITY WOULD BE MY RECOMMENDATION THAT WE STILL MAKE SURE THAT IT IS PROPERLY REMEDIATED AT THE END SO WE UNDERSTAND WHAT IT'S GOING TO LOOK LIKE.
SO, YES, IT'S NOT OUR PROPERTY, BUT IT MAY END UP ON OUR ROADS WHEN IT'S IN THE BACK OF A TRUCK.
WE DON'T KNOW. THIS IS OUR WAY OF ASKING, WHERE IS THE ROCK GOING? THANK YOU. OKAY.
THANKS. I MEAN, IS NOW A GOOD TIME FOR COMMENTS OR SHOULD I LET OTHER COUNCILLORS ASK QUESTIONS? OKAY. WELL, I THINK I'LL ACTUALLY JUST WAIT, GET ALL THE INFORMATION AS OTHER PEOPLE ASK QUESTIONS AND THEN SAVE MY COMMENTS FOR THE END.
COUNCILLOR WILLIAMS. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.
HOWEVER, WHEN YOU READ STIPULATION NUMBER A, IT SAYS THAT AN APPLICATION WILL BE MADE.
SO IT SOUNDS LIKE IN THE CONDITIONS, IT'S INCREDIBLY PRESCRIPTIVE.
SO I'M SEEING A LITTLE BIT OF A DIFFERENCE THERE.
AND I'M JUST WONDERING IF YOU CAN PROVIDE ME SOME CLARITY IN WHAT THE EXPLANATION WAS, WHICH YOU'RE SAYING THAT IT MAY TRIGGER THE MACKENZIE VALLEY LAND AND WATER BOARD, WHEREAS, YOU KNOW, RIGHT OFF THE BAT A SAYS IT WILL BE MADE MS. BASSI-KELLETT. MS. WHITE, THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION.
SO IT MAY BE REQUIRED BECAUSE WE'RE NOT THE AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE WHETHER IT IS OR ISN'T.
DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? YEAH, I GUESS I GUESS THE FROM THE PRESENTATION, YOU KNOW, MR. [INAUDIBLE] HAD MENTIONED TRIGGERS THAT WOULD BE IN PLACE AND HAS ALREADY TALKED TO THAT LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT ABOUT SAID TRIGGERS THAT WOULD BE AND IT'S CLEAR AT LEAST TO HIM AS THE DEVELOPER AND THE REGULATOR THAT IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE ANY OF THOSE WOULD BE TRIGGERED.
SO AGAIN, IT'S KIND OF US PRESCRIBING A PROCESS, AN APPLICATION PROCESS THAT BY ALL INDICATIONS LOOKS LIKE IT WOULDN'T BE TRIGGERED IN THE FIRST PLACE.
SO IF THE STIPULATION IS IN HERE OR REMAINS IN HERE AND HE DOESN'T HAVE TO DO AN APPLICATION, WOULDN'T WE HAVE TO THEN DO ALL OF THIS CONVERSATION AGAIN? MS. BASSI-KELLETT MS. WHITE.
THANK YOU. AND THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION.
SO WHILE I UNDERSTAND WHAT MR. [INAUDIBLE] IDENTIFIES, HE WAS TOLD IT'S SOMEWHAT CONTRADICTORY TO WHAT THE MUNICIPALITY WAS TOLD.
SO AS I STATED, WE ALSO HAVE CONTACTED THEM AND WE'RE TOLD THAT UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THEY HAVE ALL THE INFORMATION THAT IT WOULD, THEY WEREN'T ABLE TO MAKE A DETERMINATION FOR SURE WHETHER THESE PERMITS ARE OR ARE NOT REQUIRED.
I'M NOT A GEOLOGIST OR HAVE ANY OF THOSE QUALIFICATIONS TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION.
SO THIS IS A PROTECTION FOR THE MUNICIPALITY IN A WAY.
AND THEN WHEN WE TALK ABOUT WHETHER IT WILL OR WILL NOT BE, DO WE HAVE TO COME BACK? THE ANSWER WOULD BE NO, BECAUSE IF WE GET A LETTER FROM THE MCKENZIE VALLEY LAND AND WATER BOARD SAYING NO, NOTHING IS REQUIRED, AS LONG AS WE HAVE THAT IN WRITING, THEN WE'RE
[00:35:06]
SATISFIED THAT THAT CHECK AND BALANCE HAS BEEN COMPLETED.AND IT DOES SAY IN HERE TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING.
SO THAT CAN BE WRITTEN RESPONSE FROM THE APPROVAL AUTHORITY, WHETHER IT'S THE WATER BOARD, WHETHER THAT IS DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES AND OCEANS, WHOMEVER IS REQUIRED TO REVIEW THESE SO THAT WE KNOW AND WE HAVE A RECORD BECAUSE WHAT INEVITABLY WILL HAPPEN, AS I'M SURE YOU'RE ALL AWARE, IS THREE YEARS DOWN THE ROAD, FIVE YEARS DOWN THE ROAD, SOMEONE'S GOING TO SAY, WHAT DID YOU DO CITY? DID YOU EVEN ASK FOR THESE THINGS TO BE REQUIRED WERE THEY COMPLETED? AND SO THIS WOULD ALSO BE A WAY FOR US TO HAVE THAT PUBLIC TRANSPARENCY SO THAT PEOPLE ARE AWARE WE'RE FOLLOWING OR TRYING OUR BEST WHEN WE'RE NOT THE APPROVAL AUTHORITY.
I HEAR YOU. I JUST I WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO TEMPER IS MAYBE WE'RE TRYING A LITTLE TOO HARD.
YOU KNOW, I FEEL LIKE EARLIER ON IN MR. [INAUDIBLE] PRESENTATION AND IN YOUR RESPONSE, YOU HAD MENTIONED THAT THERE'S PROTECTION FOR THE MUNICIPALITY, BUT ISN'T THAT ALREADY STIPULATED IN THE COMMUNITY PLAN AT A HIGH LEVEL THAT THE DEVELOPMENT MUST ADHERE TO REGULATIONS, OTHER LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT AS WELL AT THE SAME TIME.
SO IT'S INFERRED ALREADY BASED ON THAT COMMUNITY PLAN.
AND I GUESS IT'S JUST I THINK IT'S THAT.
YEAH. I'LL LEAVE IT AT THAT FOR THAT QUESTION.
SO, YOU KNOW, IF IT'S ALREADY COVERED IN THE ADMINISTRATION COMMUNITY PLAN, AS MR. [INAUDIBLE] HAD STATED, WHY FLESH IT ALL OUT HERE AGAIN FOR THIS PARTICULAR APPLICATION.
I'LL ASK MS. WHITE TO RESPOND.
THANK YOU. YES. WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE WERE PRESENTING THE BEST OPTIONS TO COUNCIL IN YOUR DECISION MAKING PROCESS AS WELL THROUGH TIME TO ENSURE THAT IF THERE IS, SAY, AN EXTENSION OF TIME FROM, SAY, FIVE YEARS TO TEN YEARS CHANGEOVER OF STAFF THAT EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY ASKED FOR AND LAID OUT TO HAVE A VERY GENERAL IDENTIFICATION OF, YOU KNOW, MAKING SURE YOU'RE IN LINE WITH LEGISLATION OF OTHER GOVERNMENTS WHO HAVE AUTHORITY.
AND SO, AGAIN, JUST TRYING TO PROVIDE THE BEST RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL FOR YOUR DECISION MAKING.
AND WE AS THE ADMINISTRATION WOULD FOLLOW THROUGH WITH THOSE CONDITIONS.
WELL, JUST MAYBE I'M JUST CHECKING MY NOTES FOR THE OTHER ONES HERE.
WHAT ABOUT THE COMMENT THAT WAS MADE BY THE PRESENTER ON ITEMS D THROUGH K THAT ARE COVERED UNDER THE TERRITORIAL LAND ACT? AGAIN, IS THIS STUFF THAT WOULD HAVE ALREADY BEEN COVERED IN THE COMMUNITY PLAN? MS. BASSI-KELLETT. MS. WHITE.
AGAIN TO ANSWER THE QUESTION AT A HIGH LEVEL, I GUESS YOU COULD MAKE THAT ARGUMENT, BUT NOT WITH THESE SPECIFIC ITEMS. AND I KNOW JUST FROM SOME OF THE PERMITS THAT THE MUNICIPALITY HAS GONE THROUGH, SOME OF THESE REQUIREMENTS ARE KIND OF STAND ALONE AND NOT NECESSARILY APPLICABLE IN ALL SITUATIONS.
SO AGAIN, TRYING TO PROVIDE COUNCIL A LIST OF THE BEST RECOMMENDATION TO GO FORWARD WITH, SPECIFICALLY THINGS LIKE PEG ROCK TESTING AND POTENTIALLY WITH THE EXPLOSIVES PERMITS THAT MAY NOT FALL FOR EVERY SINGLE APPLICATION THAT GOES FORWARD FOR, SAY, A LAND USE PERMIT TO THE OTHER OR THE AUTHORITY HAVING JURISDICTION IN IT.
WAS THE HIGHWAYS JURISDICTION OF THE HIGHWAYS? WAS THE PRESENTER CORRECT IN THEIR STATEMENT THAT EGRESS ON AND OFF OF THE HIGHWAY DOESN'T CONFLICT WITH CITY LAND AND WOULD BE THE JURISDICTION OF INFRASTRUCTURE UNDER THE GNWT? MS. BASSI-KELLETT IF SOMEONE CAN EXPLAIN NUMBER TWO A BIT MORE.
IT'S NOT DIRECTLY IN OUR JURISDICTION.
HOWEVER, FROM THERE WE DON'T KNOW WHERE IT GOES.
AND WE DO PROVIDE ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE, OBVIOUSLY, ELSEWHERE WITHIN THE MUNICIPALITY.
SO THIS IS OUR WAY OF IDENTIFYING WHERE IS IT BEING TAKEN AND ARE YOU USING OUR INFRASTRUCTURE? WELL, YEAH, THAT'S.
YOU KNOW, WHAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR, IT SEEMS, IS AWARENESS OF WHERE IT'S GOING TO GO.
[00:40:03]
BUT WHAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR IN NUMBER TWO IS A FULL TRAFFIC IMPACT STATEMENT OR TRAFFIC AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT DONE BY QUALIFIED ENGINEERS.SO THAT HAS TO DO MORE WITH VOLUME GENERALLY ON A AREA AS OPPOSED TO THE LOCATION IN WHICH THE AGGREGATE IS GOING TO BE DROPPED OFF. SO I'M JUST SEEING A LITTLE INCONSISTENCY THERE AND IN THE ANSWER, AND I'M JUST WONDERING IF I CAN GET A BIT MORE CLARITY ON THAT.
MS. BASSI-KELLETT. MS. WHITE. GREAT THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
SO WE'RE NOT JUST TALKING ABOUT THE THE HAULING ITSELF.
WE'RE ALSO TALKING ABOUT OTHER ITEMS THAT GO ALONG WITH THIS AND THE PLANNING.
SO WHEN YOU ARE GETTING A QUARRY PERMIT, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT IS REQUIRED.
SO THIS ISN'T ABOVE AND BEYOND ANYTHING ELSE THAT WOULD NORMALLY BE REQUIRED AS PART OF THIS PERMIT.
WE'RE BASICALLY SAYING, SHARE IT WITH US.
AGAIN, WE'RE NOT THE QUALIFIED AUTHORITY TO APPROVE OR NOT APPROVE A HAUL ROUTE PERMIT, BUT IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE'LL PROVIDE AND VALUABLE INFORMATION, TIME OF DAY, YOU KNOW, ANY NOISE LEVELS DEPENDING ON, AGAIN, WHERE THE TRUCKS MAY OR MAY NOT BE DRIVING.
THERE'S A NUMBER OF ITEMS KIND OF EMBEDDED IN THE RESULTS OF THIS SORT OF ANALYSIS.
THANK YOU. SO HAS THE CITY REVIEWED THE NORTHERN LAND USE GUIDELINES FOR PITT'S QUARRIES AND HIS ADMINISTRATION FAMILIAR WITH THE THE GUIDELINES THAT GNWT HAS PUT FORWARD? AND. HAS THAT BEEN CONSIDERED IN THIS APPLICATION? MS. BASSI-KELLETT. MS. WHITE. YES, IT HAS.
AND REALLY THE STIPULATION WE FOUND IN THERE WAS WHERE YOU HAVE NOT WHERE THE LOCAL MUNICIPALITY HAS NOT BEEN DELEGATED THE AUTHORITY WHICH IN THIS CASE WE HAVE NOT THAT THE RULES APPEAR TO APPLY SO IT HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY STAFF.
YEAH, I DID A LITTLE BIT OF RESEARCH MYSELF, JUST REACHED OUT TO ASK SOME QUESTIONS AT LANDS AND THERE WAS SOME QUESTION ON WHETHER OR NOT QUARRYING OR LAND USE GUIDELINES CAN ACTUALLY BE APPLIED TO FEE SIMPLE HELD LAND.
SO THAT'S BEEN CONFIRMED THAT THAT IT IS ADMINISTRATION.
MS. BASSI-KELLETT. MS. WHITE. YES.
SO WE ALSO HAD, AGAIN, STAFF ADMINISTRATION CONTACTED THE DEPARTMENT OF LANDS BECAUSE WE DID HAVE THOSE KINDS OF QUESTIONS TO SAY, OKAY, WHEN DOES IT APPLY? WHEN DOESN'T IT APPLY? AND ALSO THE INFORMATION THAT WE WERE PROVIDED WAS THAT THEY'RE MORE OF THE ENFORCEMENT AGENCY WHEN IT COMES TO THESE TYPES OF THINGS RATHER THAN AN APPROVAL.
SO I THINK THE ANSWER I FEEL WE RECEIVED WAS THAT THE APPLICATION DOESN'T GO TO THEM.
IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE LANDS AND WATER BOARD.
RIGHT. WELL, AND I GUESS THAT'S A GOOD PLACE TO CONCLUDE THIS IS AGAIN, YOU KNOW, WE'VE STATED, YOU KNOW, WE'VE ALL BEEN COUNCILLORS NOW MYSELF FOR JUST ABOUT GOING ON FOUR YEARS HERE NOW. AND ONE OF THE THINGS WE'VE DEBATED A LOT IS ENFORCEMENT AND LIMITATIONS, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT COMES TO LANDS DIVISION.
BUT WHEN IT COMES TO LAND INFRACTIONS, YOU KNOW, WE'VE GOT TWO LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT, A FEDERAL JURISDICTION AND A TERRITORIAL RESTRICTION THAT HAS A FULLY STAFFED ENFORCEMENT GROUP THAT HAS A SPECIFIC MANDATE TO ENFORCE LAND INFRACTIONS.
AND HERE, I FEAR THAT WE'RE BEING OVERLY PRESCRIPTIVE AND HEAVY HANDED IN DELAYING, SAY, OR INCURRING UNDUE COSTS TO A POTENTIAL DEVELOPER WHEN IN FACT, OTHER LEVELS ARE ALREADY ENGAGED AND HAVE CAPABILITY AND CAPACITY TO DO THE ENFORCEMENT.
SO EVEN IF WE PUT BURDENSOME CONDITIONS UPON THIS DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, I FEEL LIKE ALL WE DO IS PUMP THE BRAKES, COST THE DEVELOPER A LOT MORE MONEY, AND AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE'RE NOT GOING TO ENFORCE IT ANYWAY.
SO THAT'S WHERE I'M REALLY HAVING A CHALLENGE WITH THIS.
AND I ALSO THINK THAT IT'S VERY CLEAR, MUCH LIKE MR. [INAUDIBLE] HAD SAID, THAT, YOU KNOW, DIFFERENT JURISDICTIONS, YOU KNOW, A THROUGH C IS MACKENZIE VALLEY LAND AND WATER BOARD.
YOU KNOW, I THINK IT'S D THROUGH K IS TAKEN CARE OF BY THE DEPARTMENT OF LANDS.
[00:45:09]
BE REMOVING THOSE STIPULATIONS FROM THERE.SO ANYWAY, THAT'S THAT'S MY COMMENTS FOR FOR RIGHT NOW, UNLESS ADMINISTRATION WANTED TO TO TO RESPOND TO THE THE ENFORCEMENT COMMENTS THERE AS WELL.
BUT THAT'S MY COMMENTS FOR NOW.
MS. BASSI-KELLETT, ANY COMMENT FROM ADMINISTRATION? THANK YOU. NO, NONE AT THIS TIME.
THANK YOU, COUNCILLOR MUFANDAEDZA.
I THINK COUNCILLOR WILLIAMS PRETTY MUCH COVERED A NUMBER OF THE QUESTIONS THAT I HAD, BUT ALSO JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT FOR THE RECORD THAT I AM A LITTLE CONCERNED ABOUT THE STIPULATIONS THAT ARE POINTED IN THIS LISTED IN THIS MEMO, ALSO NOTING THE TIME AND COST THAT THE DEVELOPER HAS PRESENTED ON WHAT IT WOULD BE.
BUT A QUESTION I HAD WAS ALSO ON THE TERM.
SURE. THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION.
SO I THINK I WOULD HAVE TO REVIEW IT, BUT I WOULD THINK ANY MULTIPLE OF FIVE.
THANK YOU. I THINK THAT'S THE ONLY QUESTION I HAVE THAT HASN'T ALREADY BEEN ANSWERED.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU, COUNCILLOR KONGE.
THANK YOU. I THINK I NEED TO START BY SAYING THAT I'M ACTUALLY VERY DISAPPOINTED IN MYSELF AND COUNCIL AS A WHOLE, THAT WHEN WE'RE DOING THE COMMUNITY PLAN BECAUSE I'M I REMEMBER HAVING DISCUSSIONS AT THE TIME ABOUT THESE PRIVATELY HELD PROPERTIES THAT WE'RE IN, IN THE CITY THAT WERE PART OF THE GROSS GROWTH MANAGEMENT AND BEING TOLD THAT IT WASN'T GOING TO BE THAT BIG OF A DEAL, WE COULD FIND WAYS TO SOLVE THESE SOLUTIONS.
IT JUST MADE THE MOST SENSE NOW FOR THE COMMUNITY PLAN.
I. YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT THAT THAT WHAT WE SEE BEFORE US TODAY COULD HAVE BEEN A LOT SIMPLER.
I THINK THAT I DON'T THINK THAT ADMINISTRATION I THINK I THINK IT COULD HAVE BEEN JUST SIMPLER.
AND I THINK I'LL LEAVE IT AT THAT.
YOU KNOW, WE THINK THAT YOU MIGHT NEED MACKENZIE VALLEY LAND AND WATER BOARD.
YOU HAVE THIS REPORT, YOU'RE TAKING OUT 300 CUBES.
LET'S GO OVER AND HAVE A CHAT WITH THEM.
DEVELOPMENT OFFICER DEVELOPER LET'S GO OVER AND FIND OUT WHETHER OR NOT THIS IS LET'S HAVE A PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION WITH THEM AS A GROUP INSTEAD OF EACH PARTY GOING SEPARATELY AND GETTING DIFFERENT ANSWERS.
BECAUSE I KNOW THAT WHEN YOU TALK TO DIFFERENT LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT, EVERY LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT, INCLUDING THE CITY, IF YOU PHONE SOMEBODY AND TALK TO SOMEBODY, YOU GET AN ANSWER YOU DON'T LIKE, YOU WAIT 30 MINUTES, YOU PHONE AND HOPEFULLY SOMEBODY ELSE ANSWERS THE PHONE.
MAYBE YOU GET A DIFFERENT ANSWER AND THAT HAPPENS.
I KNOW THAT HAPPENS BECAUSE IT HAPPENS TO ME.
WE HAVE A PROBLEM IN FRONT OF US.
SO MY MY QUESTION TO ADMINISTRATION IS, CAN WE JUST GO INTO THE ZONING BYLAW AND CHANGE THE ZONING BYLAW SO THAT HE CAN GRADE HIS PROPERTY? LIKE, SURE, 300 CUBES IS BIG, BUT THEY'VE HAULED 300 CUBES OFF OF THE OLD CURRY CONSTRUCTION SITE ACROSS FROM CANADIAN TIRE. THEY'VE HAULED MORE THAN THAT OUT OF [INAUDIBLE].
THEY HAUELD MORE OF THAT OUT OF ALL OVER THE PLACE WITH LESS REQUIREMENTS.
SO IS THAT AN OPTION? CAN WE JUST GO IN AND ALLOW GRADING TO BE PERMITTED UNDER THE ZONING BYLAW, UNDER THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT? MS. BASSI-KELLETT. I'LL ASK MS. WHITE IF SHE COULD RESPOND TO THIS.
GREAT THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION.
AND I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO SOLVE.
I REALLY DO WHAT, AGAIN, I HAVE TO GO BACK TO IS THE COMMUNITY PLAN.
[00:50:04]
AND THE COMMUNITY PLAN BASICALLY STATES NO DEVELOPMENT OF ANY TYPE WITHOUT AN AMENDMENT TO THE PLAN OR AN AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOLLOWED BY PERMANENT DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE PERMITTED, WHICH IS WHY WE'VE LANDED ON THIS.IS IT A QUARRY? BECAUSE THAT IS THE ONLY EXCEPTION.
SO IT'S NOT A ZONING BYLAW THING OR CHANGE.
IT'S A COMMUNITY PLAN POLICY THAT WOULD NEED TO BE CHANGED.
SO THEN HOW DO WE YOU KNOW, I MEAN, WE HAVE PROPERTIES THAT ARE IN THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT THAT HAVE RESIDENTIAL HOUSES ON IT. SO IF THEY WANT TO DO AN ADDITION ON THEIR HOUSE, DO THEY HAVE TO CHANGE THE COMMUNITY PLAN? MS. BASSI-KELLETT.
SO THEY WOULD BE LEGALLY NON COMPLYING AND SO YOU'RE ALLOWED TO WITHIN REASON DO AN ADDITION OR EXPANSION OF A NON-COMPLIANT USE IF YOU WERE TO CHANGE THE USE, SAY, FROM A HOUSE TO I DON'T KNOW, I'M JUST PICKING SOMETHING RANDOM A RESTAURANT.
THEN YES, A COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT WOULD BE REQUIRED.
THANK YOU. AND THEN WE HAVE ANOTHER ONE THAT HAS A FULL ON BUSINESS ON IT WITH THE RESIDENTIAL.
I MEAN, WE HELPED BUILD THE HOUSE, ANOTHER HOUSE THAT'S GOING ON THAT ONE, AND THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO GO AND GET THE COMMUNITY PLAN CHANGED TO PUT A, YOU KNOW, ANOTHER HOUSE. IT SEEMS TO ME LIKE, YOU KNOW, THAT EACH OF THESE INDIVIDUALLY, PRIVATELY HELD PARCELS THAT'S IN GROWTH MANAGEMENT ARE DEALT WITH DIFFERENTLY.
SO HOW DO WE ENSURE THAT THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN, THAT THERE IS CONSISTENCY IN THIS? MS. BASSI-KELLETT. IT'S VERY HARD TO RESPOND TO THAT WITHOUT SPECIFICS.
BUT I'LL ASK MS. WHITE IF SHE HAS ANYTHING SHE'D LIKE TO SAY.
THANK YOU. AND IT'S A GOOD OPPORTUNITY NOT TO GET INTO A HUGE DISCUSSION.
BUT I WILL IDENTIFY THAT WHEN YOU HAVE A PROPERTY AND WHETHER IT'S RE DESIGNATED OR RE ZONED WHILE YOU ALREADY HAVE A USE ON IT, AS LONG AS THAT USE WAS LEGALLY EXISTING PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE BYLAW, THAT IS ENACTING A CHANGE THAT USE CAN CONTINUE AND SOMETIMES THERE ARE PROVISIONS THAT ALLOW IT TO EXPAND.
IF WE WERE ADDING A NEW USE OR CHANGING A USE, WE WOULD BE AND AT THE SAME FOR ANY PROPERTY WHERE WE HAVE THAT LEGAL NON COMPLIANT USE, IT CAN CONTINUE, IT CAN BE ALTERED IN MINOR WAYS.
IT'S WHEN SOMETHING LARGER OR MORE SIGNIFICANT TO THE LAND IS OCCURRING.
AND THAT'S NOT JUST CITY OF YELLOWKNIFE.
THANK YOU. WHAT'S THE TAX DESIGNATION ON THIS PROPERTY? MS. BASSI-KELLETT. WE'D HAVE TO TAKE THAT UNDER ADVISEMENT.
THANK YOU. SO I MEAN, THERE IS A HOST THERE.
KENNY'S GOT KIDS. I KNOW HE'S GOT KIDS.
SO HE COULD JUST SAY THAT HE'S MAKING A SOCCER PITCH FOR HIS KIDS.
THEY'RE GOING TO THAT'S GOING TO BE THEIR SUMMER HOUSE AND THEY'RE GOING TO PLAY SOCCER.
HE WANTS TO PUT IN A SOCCER PITCH.
IS THAT PERMITTED UNDER? BECAUSE I MEAN, I WOULD THINK THAT WOULD BE PERMITTED.
WOULD THAT BE PERMITTED, MS. WHITE? WITHOUT THE REMOVAL OF THE ROCK YES.
I MEAN, WE'RE IN THE NORTH. YOU CAN'T REALLY MAKE A SOCCER PITCH WITHOUT REMOVING ROCK.
I MEAN, I'VE BEEN UP IN NORTHERN GREENLAND.
THAT'S WHAT THEY DO. THEY BLAST OUT A HUGE AREA AND THEY MAKE A SOCCER PITCH.
BUT THE LAND IN THIS AREA IS KEPT IN A STATE THAT ALLOWS FOR A VARIETY OF FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES, AND IT SHOULD NOT BE ALTERED IN A MANNER THAT PREVENTS FUTURE DEVELOPMENT. IN A MANNER THAT PREVENTS FUTURE DEVELOPMENT.
SO I WOULD THINK THAT BLASTING IT FLAT WOULD NOT THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT.
AT THIS POINT. I MEAN, YOU KNOW, KENNY DOESN'T REALLY KNOW EXACTLY WHAT HE WANTS TO DO.
I, I HAD TO CHUCKLE A LITTLE BIT WITH COUNCILLOR MORSE'S QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT ARE YOU DOING THERE? I MEAN, KENNY'S A BUSINESSMAN.
DOES HE KNOW WHAT THAT OPPORTUNITY IS RIGHT NOW? NO. NO, BUT THERE IS ONE.
[00:55:01]
I MEAN, I TOTALLY GET THAT.AND I UNDERSTAND WHY SOMEBODY WHO ISN'T IN BUSINESS PERHAPS WOULDN'T UNDERSTAND THAT.
IT'S SO AND I DON'T FEEL THAT IT SHOULD BE [INAUDIBLE] CONSTRUCTION INC OR LIMITED OR WHATEVER THEY ARE RESPONSIBILITY TO TO GO AND FIX WHAT I PERSONALLY FEEL IS OUR MISTAKE.
SO IF I IF COUNCIL COLLECTIVELY DECIDED WE WANTED TO FIX THESE PRIVATELY HELD PROPERTIES, GET THEM OUT OF GROWTH MANAGEMENT, OPEN UP OUR COMMUNITY PLAN, WHAT WOULD IT TAKE TO GET THAT BALL ROLLING? THERE'S ALSO IN THE COMMUNITY AREA PLAN.
WHEN WE WANT TO DESIGNATE AND ALLOW FOR PERMANENT DEVELOPMENT, THEN THAT'S ALLOWED.
AND SO IT WOULD JUST BE CREATING AREA DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR ALL OF THE PRIVATELY HELD PARCELS OF LAND WOULD PROBABLY BE ONE OF THE NEXT STEPS MS. BASSI-KELLETT WITHOUT ACTUALLY HAVING TO ALTER THE COMMUNITY PLAN THAT WOULD BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE COMMUNITY PLAN.
MS. BASSI-KELLETT THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MADAM CHAIR.
MS. WHITE, ANYTHING TO ADD? THANK YOU. NOT REALLY TO ADD, BUT JUST TO ADVISE.
IT WOULD BE PROBABLY IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE MUNICIPALITY IF YOU WERE THINKING OF DOING THIS TO DO IT AS AN OVERALL REVIEW RATHER THAN ON INDIVIDUAL PARCELS AND PROPERTIES WITHOUT THE APPLICANT COMING FORWARD THAT PROVIDES YOU WITH THE ABILITY TO DO A TOTAL COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF WHAT ARE YOUR NEEDS, WHAT CAN YOU ACTUALLY SUPPORT FROM AN INFRASTRUCTURE STANDPOINT AND WHAT ARE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENTS FOR THE FUTURE.
THOSE ALL SHOULD BE CONSIDERED IN ASSOCIATION WITH EACH OTHER, NOT AS ONE OFFS, WHICH AGAIN, I WAS NOT HERE AT THE COMMUNITY PLAN PROCESS, SO I'M NOT SURE HOW IT WAS PRESENTED, BUT THAT WOULD BE MY RECOMMENDATION TO ENSURE GOOD LAND USE PLANNING AND GOOD MUNICIPAL INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING GOING FORWARD.
OKAY. SO. BUT I CAN UNDERSTAND THAT WE WANT TO HAVE GOOD PLANNING.
SO HOW DO WE FIX THAT IN THE MOST QUICKEST WAY? YOU WANT TO FIX IT FOR EVERY PRIVATE PARCEL, FOR ALL THE PRIVATE PARCELS THAT ARE CURRENTLY UNDER THE GM ZONE.
CREATING AREA DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR ANY LAND THAT IS DESIGNATED FOR DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE IN COMPLIANCE THEY HAVE HOUSES ON IT, THEY HAVE BUSINESSES ON IT.
THEY HAVE YOU KNOW, IF THERE'S YOU HAD MENTIONED THAT THERE WAS EIGHT OF THEM.
I ONLY THOUGHT THERE WAS LIKE FOUR.
BUT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT LESS THAN TEN PARCELS IN TOWN THAT UNFORTUNATELY HAVE BEEN PUT SOMEWHERE WHERE THEY WHERE I DON'T BELIEVE THEY BELONG.
MS. BASSI-KELLETT. WE WOULD WANT THE OPPORTUNITY TO COME BACK TO LAY OUT WHAT AN APPROACH WOULD BE, BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF DIFFERENT CONSIDERATIONS THAT WE WOULD NEED TO DO. I'LL ASK MS. WHITE IF SHE'D LIKE TO ELABORATE.
THERE'S I WOULD SAY THERE'S PROBABLY MORE THAN TWENTY IF I DID A SERIOUS COUNT.
SO THEN THIS IS BEING REVIEWED UNDER THE OLD BYLAW 4404, I BELIEVE.
IS THAT THE CASE, INCLUDING ON GROWTH MANAGEMENT PARCELS? MS. BASSI-KELLETT I'LL ASK MS. WHITE IF SHE'LL RESPOND, BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT IT IS THE COMMUNITY PLAN THAT IS THAT TRUMPS THE ZONING BYLAW.
I'LL ASK HER TO RESPOND TO THAT.
THANK YOU. AND SO, YES, THERE ARE A LOT GRADING AND STIPULATIONS IN 4404.
[01:00:01]
HOWEVER, WHAT THE COMMUNITY PLAN SAYS IS ANY GRADING OR DEVELOPMENT MUST BE IN ASSOCIATION WITH AN APPROVED PERMANENT DEVELOPMENT WHICH THEN KICKS BACK TO YOU NEED TO DO THE AMENDMENT.SO AGAIN, IT'S NOT A ZONING ISSUE.
IT'S THE POLICY DOCUMENT THAT WE'RE WORKING UNDER.
I'D LIKE ADMINISTRATION TO TO FIND OUT IF IF [INAUDIBLE] REALLY WANTS TO HAVE THIS PERMIT DONE IMMEDIATELY, OR IF WE CAN DO THE REVIEW AND GET THESE THINGS THESE UP TO POSSIBLY TWENTY PROPERTIES THAT ARE PRIVATELY HELD IN GROWTH MANAGEMENT, IF WE CAN DO SOMETHING WITH THOSE.
I THINK THAT IT DIDN'T SOUND LIKE TIME WAS OF THE ESSENCE.
THAT'S WHERE I'M AT RIGHT NOW.
AND IF IT'S NOT, THEN COME BACK TO COUNCIL AND TELL US HOW WE CAN FIX THIS FOR NOT JUST THIS PROPONENT, BUT FOR ALL THESE PRIVATELY HELD LANDS THAT ARE DESIGNATED GROWTH MANAGEMENT. SOUNDS GOOD.
I HAVE COUNCILLOR MORGAN NEXT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MADAM CHAIR.
I'LL START WITH JUST A FEW SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO ADMINISTRATION.
ONE QUESTION IS THAT MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT IN GENERAL, I THINK THROUGH OUR ZONING BYLAW, WE REQUIRE A MINIMUM OF 50 METER BUFFER BETWEEN WATER BODIES AND I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S DEVELOPMENT OR GRADING OR IN PARTICULAR, BUT SO IN THIS CASE, IT LOOKS LIKE ALONG SOME PARTS OF THE SHORELINE THERE WOULD BE MORE THAN A 15 METER BUFFER.
BUT ALONG AT LEAST SOME PART, IT WOULD BE AS LOW AS 41 METERS.
CAN ADMINISTRATION EXPLAIN WHY THAT SEEMS TO BE ACCEPTABLE IN THIS CASE OR IF ADMINISTRATION HAS CONCERNS WITH A 41 METER BUFFER? MS. BASSI-KELLETT MS. WHITE.
SO IF WE LOOK AT THAT SECTION OF THE ZONING BYLAW, WHAT IT APPEARS TO APPLY TO IS AREAS WHERE DEVELOPMENT IS, WHERE THERE IS THAT PUBLIC BUFFER BETWEEN THE SHORELINE AND WHETHER IT BE PUBLIC LAND OR PRIVATE LAND, BECAUSE THE CONDITIONS THAT FOLLOW THAT 50 METER REQUIREMENT IS TO ALSO ENSURE THAT PUBLIC ACCESS TO THE SHORELINE IS MAINTAINED AND THAT PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE IS PUT IN PLACE.
WELL, IN THIS CASE, WE WOULD NOT, AS THE MUNICIPALITY GO OUT TO MR. [INAUDIBLE] PROPERTY, AND SAY, YOU NEED TO HAVE A PUBLIC TRAIL DOWN TO THE WATER TO FULFILL THOSE CONDITIONS BENEATH IT.
SO IN THIS CASE, WE'RE GREATER THAN 30 METERS AND UP TO 90 METERS IN SOME CASES.
SO WE FELT THAT WHAT WAS PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT WAS APPROPRIATE IN THIS SITUATION.
THAT'S HOW WE MADE THAT DETERMINATION.
I UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS A MORE DIFFICULT CASE, GIVEN THAT THE PRIVATE LOT EXTENDS RIGHT TO THE WATERFRONT, WHICH I'M ASSUMING IS PROBABLY INHERITED FROM EARLIER TIMES WHEN CONSIDERATIONS ABOUT PUBLIC ACCESS TO WATERFRONT WERE NOT AS FOREFRONT IN GOVERNMENTS MINDS. I WONDERED ABOUT THE THE BUILDING THAT EXISTS ON THE SITE.
CURRENTLY THE HOUSE IS BY THE WATER.
IT WAS IDENTIFIED IN THE MEMO AS BEING BUILT IN 1930S, I THINK.
AND IT LOOKED LIKE THERE'S PROMISES BY THE DEVELOPER TO TRY TO PROTECT THAT BUILDING FROM BEING DAMAGED BY THE EXTRACTION ACTIVITIES.
IS THIS A BUILDING THAT HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED BY THE HERITAGE COMMITTEE IN ANY WAY OR HAS ANY HERITAGE PROTECTIONS? OR IS THIS JUST SORT OF A GOODWILL MEASURE, ESSENTIALLY THE OWNER OF THIS LOT CAN DO WHATEVER IT WANTS WITH THE BUILDING.
[01:05:09]
MS. BASSI-KELLETT.THANK YOU. IT HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED BY THE HERITAGE COMMITTEE, AS WELL AS THE MUNICIPALITY HAS EVEN PROVIDED FUNDING IN THE PAST NOT TO THIS PROPERTY OWNER, BUT TO PREVIOUS OWNERS FOR MAINTENANCE AND UPGRADING TO THAT STRUCTURE.
SO ANY DEVELOPMENT THAT IS BEING PROPOSED IS NOT WITHIN AN AREA THAT WE THOUGHT WOULD HAVE A NEGATIVE IMPACT TO THAT, AND IT'S NOT BEING PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED OR DESTROYED IN ANY WAY.
THANK YOU. AND SO WHAT TOOLS OR POWERS DOES THE CITY HAVE IF IF SOMETHING DID HAPPEN TO THIS BUILDING OR SOMETHING WAS PROPOSED TO HAPPEN, WHAT WOULD SPRING INTO EFFECT THEN? WHAT ARE THE MECHANISMS OR THE POWERS? MS. BASSI-KELLETT.
SO IT WOULD DEPEND ON WHAT WAS BEING PROPOSED.
ADDITIONS IN THE PAST HAVE COME TO THE HERITAGE COMMITTEE FOR REVIEW TO ENSURE THAT THE CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE BUILDING IS MAINTAINED GOING FORWARD AND THAT ANY ADDITIONS MATCH AND FOLLOW THROUGH.
SHOULD SOMETHING GREATER THAN THAT OR DEMOLITION BE PROPOSED, THEN WE WOULD HAVE TO TAKE A LOOK BECAUSE I'M NOT SURE WHAT SPECIFIC PROTECTIONS HAVE BEEN AFFORDED TO IT, NOR HAS CONSIDERATION BEEN GIVEN THAT I'M AWARE OF IN THE PAST THROUGH THAT HERITAGE COMMITTEE.
BUT AGAIN, IT WOULD NEED TO BE REVIEWED AT THAT POINT SHOULD AN APPLICATION BE MADE.
SO THE CONDITIONS THAT ARE PART OF H IN THE RECOMMENDATIONS THERE, THERE'S A LIST OF REQUIREMENTS THERE AND I DOESN'T SPECIFY.
IT JUST IS THE FOLLOWING WILL BE REQUIRED.
IT DOESN'T SPECIFY EXACTLY BY WHOM THEY WOULD BE REQUIRED.
AND WHEN CAN YOU CLARIFY WHAT THE INTENTION OF H WAS? MS. BASSI-KELLETT. MS. WHITE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WHEN WE DO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT PUTS INTO LINE THE TERMS OF WHO DOES WHAT AND WHO PROVIDES WHAT TO THE MUNICIPALITY. AND AS WAS MENTIONED EARLIER, IN SITUATIONS WHERE WE ARE DEALING WITH THESE CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED USES IS WHEN COUNCIL SEES IT.
AND THE FIVE YEARS OR TEN YEARS WOULD KICK IN ONCE ALL OF THESE ITEMS WERE SATISFIED, I.E.
SO THE IDEA IS THIS FIVE YEAR OR TEN YEAR, WHATEVER THE TERM IS, WOULDN'T KICK IN UNTIL ALL OF THE ITEMS LISTED HERE WERE SATISFIED. AND IF I COULD JUST ALSO ADD ANOTHER REASON WE'VE ADDED THE FIVE YEAR PLUS A RENEWAL TERM IS BECAUSE OF THE WAY BOTH THE PREVIOUS 4404 AS WELL AS THE CURRENT BYLAWS WRITTEN IS DEVELOPMENT PERMITS WILL BECOME INEFFECTIVE AFTER 12 MONTHS IF NO WORK HAS BEEN DONE.
WE DIDN'T WANT TO KIND OF STOP A CLOCK BEFORE IT STARTED IN EFFECT, IF THAT MAKES SENSE.
THANK YOU. AM I ALLOWED TO ASK A FURTHER QUESTION OF KENNY AT THIS POINT? I GUESS GIVEN SOME OF THE PREVIOUS QUESTIONS BY COUNCIL MEMBERS THAT HAVE BEEN ASKED, WHAT I'M FAILING TO UNDERSTAND IS.
HOW SO? IT SEEMS LIKE WHAT THE CITY IS REQUIRING IS JUST THAT THE APPLICANT PUT IN AN APPLICATION TO THE LAND AND WATER BOARD WITH ALL THE INFORMATION THAT THEY WOULD NEED TO SEE WHETHER OR NOT IT REQUIRES A WATER LICENSE AND LAND USE PERMIT, AND THEN THEY CAN DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT IT'S REQUIRED.
THE APPLICANT SEEMS PRETTY SURE THAT IT WOULDN'T BE REQUIRED.
GOOD TO GO. THEY DECIDED IT'S NOT REQUIRED.
THEY COME BACK TO US, WE CHECK THAT BOX, WE MOVE ON.
I'M NOT SEEING WHAT HUGE ADDITIONAL BURDEN THAT CREATES.
[01:10:05]
THRESHOLD FOR REQUIRING SOMETHING.WHY THERE'S SUCH A CONCERN ABOUT JUST GOING THROUGH THE PROCESS OF CHECKING WITH THE WATER BOARD, WHO IS THE APPROPRIATE REGULATOR HERE? SO I'M I'M HAVING TROUBLE SEEING THERE'S A LOT OF TALK ABOUT THE UNDUE BURDEN AND TIME AND COST AND RESOURCES THAT THIS WOULD PUT ON A DEVELOPER.
AND ALL WE'RE ASKING IS JUST TO CHECK WITH THE BOARD.
ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? COUNCILLOR WILLIAMS, DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION? I GUESS NOT REALLY A QUESTION.
IT'S MAYBE A PROPOSAL FOR COUNCIL TO CONSIDER.
SO I'M NOT SURE IF THAT'S IN COMMENTS OR IF THAT'S NOW.
YEAH. 2 SECONDS. LET ME JUST DOUBLE CHECK.
HAD I HAD ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? NO. I'LL SAVE MY QUESTIONS TO COMMENTS.
AND, YOU KNOW, KEEP IN MIND THAT I RUN AN ELECTRONIC STORE.
NOW, OF COURSE, I WOULDN'T WANT THAT TO BE WORD FOR WORD.
I THINK THAT IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO KICK IT BACK TO ADMINISTRATION, TO PUT THEIR SHINE ON IT.
BUT, YOU KNOW, HERE GOES NOTHING.
SO, YOU KNOW, ABOUT THE THE THE CONDITIONS THAT WERE ON THERE.
YOU KNOW, WE TALKED ABOUT A THROUGH C, MACKENZIE VALLEY LAND AND WATER BOARD.
WE TALKED ABOUT D THROUGH K, WE TALKED ABOUT THE TERM.
SO, YOU KNOW, ONE OF MY PROPOSALS WOULD BE FOR COUNCIL TO CONSIDER THAT THE MEMO COULD READ SUCH AS THIS, THAT COUNCIL APPROVE THE PROPOSED NATURAL RESOURCE EXTRACTION USE ON PORTION OF LOT 4 BLOCK 316 AS CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED USE IN THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT ZONE.
AND STIPULATION NUMBER ONE WOULD BE THE PROPONENT MUST COMPLY WITH ALL AUTHORITIES HAVING JURISDICTION AND PROVIDE COPIES TO THE CITY, WHICH I THINK REALLY ENCAPSULATES A LOT OF THOSE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE THERE.
AND THEN NUMBER THREE, WHICH WOULD BE NUMBER TWO IN THE MEMO, WHICH IS THE TRANSPORT ROUTES, WHICH AGAIN SEEMED LIKE IT WAS A REQUIREMENT THAT ADMINISTRATION HAS FOR QUARRYING ACTIVITY, WHICH SEEMS TOTALLY REASONABLE IF THAT IS WHAT THEIR INTERNAL PROCESSES TO DETERMINE WHERE HAUL LOADS ARE GOING OR WHATEVER, AND THEN TO HAVE SOME TRAFFIC STUDY THAT'S IN THAT SEEMS TOTALLY REASONABLE.
THAT'S MY INTENTION WITH THIS.
IT'S NOT TO GLOSS OVER ANY DETAILS.
I WOULD HOPE THAT EVERYONE COULD STILL FEEL SATISFIED THAT THERE WOULD BE APPROPRIATE OVERSIGHT.
SO, YOU KNOW, I'D LIKE TO PROPOSE THAT AS POSSIBLY A RECOMMENDATION.
I CAN CERTAINLY EMAIL THAT OUT TO MADAM MAYOR HERE AND.
I WOULD ALSO BE IN FAVOR OF CONTINUING THAT DISCUSSION WITHOUT HAVING TO HOLD UP MR. [INAUDIBLE] ANY FURTHER ON THIS ONE.
SO ANYWAY, EMAILS COME IN COUNCIL SORRY ABOUT THE DELAY.
[01:15:03]
THANK YOU, COUNCILLOR KONGE.AND THEN I ABSOLUTELY WOULD SUPPORT THIS.
THANK YOU. I CERTAINLY WOULD BE AMENABLE TO THAT THROUGH DISCUSSION TO AMEND IT TO TEN YEAR.
BUT AGAIN, I'D LOVE TO HEAR FROM THE REST JUST SO YOU KNOW, COUNCIL.
IT HAS BEEN EMAILED OUT, SO YOU SHOULD SEE IT IN YOUR INBOXES.
AGAIN, ALSO VERY OPEN TO HAVING IT BE PUT BACK TO ADMINISTRATION FOR A LITTLE BIT OF SMOOTH SMOOTHENING OF THE ENGLISH JUST BECAUSE, AGAIN, I PREDOMINANTLY SELL ELECTRONICS.
THANKS, SIR. I JUST WANTED TO TAKE A SECOND TO READ COUNCILLOR WILLIAMS EMAIL, IF THAT'S OKAY.
SO WHY DON'T WE COME BACK AT 1:33 P.M.? OKAY. WE WILL RECONVENE OUR MEETING AND I WILL PASS IT TO COUNCILLOR MORSE.
YEAH. JUST TO START THE CLARIFICATION I WANTED TO MAKE WHEN COUNCILLOR MORGAN WAS ASKING HER QUESTIONS IS JUST THAT THERE MAY BE A BIT OF A SEMANTICS ISSUE HERE.
I DON'T SPEAK ON THEIR BEHALF, OBVIOUSLY, BUT I THINK JUST RELATED TO SOME OF THE QUESTIONS COUNCILLOR MORGAN WAS ASKING ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THE OWNERS NATURE OF AN APPLICATION, I MEAN, THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SUBMITTING A FULL BLOWN WATER LICENSE APPLICATION AND DETERMINING WHETHER AN APPLICATION IS EVEN NEEDED.
AND SO I THINK SIMPLY WITH THESE PROVISIONS, I MIGHT SUGGEST THAT WHAT I WAS GOING TO SUGGEST IF I WAS GOING IN THAT DIRECTION, IS THAT WE'D PUT SOMETHING ABOUT HOW SUCH PERMITS WOULD BE APPLIED FOR IF REQUIRED.
OR WE COULD JUST PUT A BLANKET STATEMENT RATHER THAN SPECIFIC ABOUT COMPLYING WITH ALL OTHER JURISDICTIONAL REQUIREMENTS.
SIMPLY SAYING LIKE, YOU KNOW, THIS LICENSE DOES NOT PRECLUDE ANY AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS UNDER ANY OTHER FEDERAL OR TERRITORIAL ACT OR INSTRUMENT, AND WE MIGHT CONSIDER DOING SOMETHING LIKE THAT SIMILARLY, RATHER THAN KIND OF SPECIFICALLY LISTING LICENSES, PERMITS, BECAUSE I MEAN, REALLY, AS NOTED HERE, THE CITY DOESN'T HAVE THE JURISDICTION TO REQUIRE THE BOARD TO GO THROUGH APPLICATION PROCESSES.
BECAUSE I THINK ULTIMATELY THE BOARD WOULDN'T ACCEPT THE APPLICATION.
IT WOULD SIMPLY SAY, WELL, YOU DON'T NEED A WATER LICENSE, SO WE DON'T ACCEPT THE APPLICATION.
BUT I MIGHT SUGGEST THAT THERE IS AN EASIER WAY OF GOING ABOUT THAT.
IF YOU DON'T TRIGGER SOMETHING, YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO GET AN EMAIL FROM AN INSPECTOR OR G NWT.
YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO GET AN EMAIL FROM SOMEONE AT THE BOARD.
I'M NOT SURE HOW THAT WOULD WORK.
WHAT IF THERE'S A DFO REQUIREMENT THE CITY HASN'T THOUGHT OF, OR WHAT IF THIS OR THAT REQUIREMENT.
I THINK IT'S BETTER TO BE GENERAL IN NATURE AND JUST SAY IF THERE ARE ANY OTHER INSTRUMENTS REQUIRED RELATED TO THIS DEVELOPMENT, THE DOCUMENT, ALL DOCUMENTATION BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY.
I THINK MY MAIN DIFFICULTY HERE IS THAT A QUARRY ISN'T REALLY THE INTENDED USE OF THE SITE.
[01:20:01]
ONE WAY TO GET OUT OF THAT IS SIMPLY TO SAY YOU'RE QUARRYING BECAUSE IT'S A CONDITIONAL USE.I DON'T KNOW IF HE CONTINUES TO SUGGEST THAT, BUT THAT WE KIND OF GO THROUGH A PROCESS OF DETERMINING HOW WE MIGHT DEAL WITH ANY DEVELOPMENT IN THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT ZONE OR WHETHER WE WANT TO.
I MEAN, THAT'S A BIT OF A DIFFERENT QUESTION.
I MEAN, WE'VE EFFECTIVELY KIND OF STRANDED THOSE DEVELOPMENTS OR THOSE POTENTIAL SITES FOR DEVELOPMENT THROUGH COMMUNITY PLANNING, WHICH IT SOUNDS TO ME FROM FROM MY LINE OF QUESTIONING IS IS SOMEWHAT APPROPRIATE.
IT'S JUST KIND OF A FUNNY ONE.
I SORT OF WONDER WHY WOULD SOMEONE WANT TO OWN A PIECE OF LAND? BUT THEN AGAIN, I MEAN, THERE'S THERE'S LOTS OF PEOPLE WHO BUY A PIECE OF LAND WITH WITH JUST SPECULATION IN MIND.
THIS WOULD BE A GREAT PIECE OF PROPERTY TO OWN.
AND I WOULD SUGGEST THAT THE ONE THAT MR. [INAUDIBLE] OWNS HERE IS IS JUST THAT KIND OF SITE.
I MEAN, IT'S A BEAUTIFUL WATERFRONT SITE.
I WOULD LOVE TO OWN IT MYSELF AND POTENTIALLY DEVELOP IT IN THE FUTURE.
BUT I THINK MY DIFFICULTY IS JUST IN THE APPLICATION ITSELF RIGHT NOW IS FOR QUARRYING AT THIS SITE.
AND I THINK IF WE WERE TO GO THROUGH A PROCESS OF DETERMINING BEST USE OF SUCH A SITE, I HIGHLY DOUBT THAT THE COMMUNITY WOULD WANT A COUNCIL THAT REPRESENTS THE COMMUNITY DETERMINED THAT QUARRYING IS THE BEST USE FOR FOR A WATERFRONT SITE.
I THINK TYPICALLY YOU QUARRY IT SITES THAT ARE IN INDUSTRIAL AREAS OUTSIDE OF KIND OF A PUBLIC VIEWPOINT SUCH AS A WATERFRONT SITE LIKE THIS.
SO IT'S A BIT OF A DIFFICULT ONE BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT REALLY APPLYING TO QUARRY, BUT WE DON'T HAVE IT ZONED OR PLANNED FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT EITHER. SO I THINK GENERALLY THEN I THINK WHERE I LAND IS THAT I'D PREFER TO SEE THIS COME FORWARD AS AN APPLICATION TO AMEND THE COMMUNITY PLAN AND SEE IF COUNCIL AND THE COMMUNITY SUPPORTS THE IDEA OF OF THIS AREA BEING DEVELOPED FOR RESIDENTIAL USE.
AND I THINK THE TOUGH THING IS, IS LIKE THERE'S THERE'S A SPECIFIC PLOT OF LAND HERE THAT'S OWNED PRIVATELY, BUT THEN THERE'S ALSO ALL THE SURROUNDING LANDS AND WHAT WE MIGHT DO WITH THEM IN THE FUTURE THAT KIND OF NEED TO BE PLANNED FOR.
SO I DON'T KNOW IT'S JUST A LITTLE BIT OF A TOUGH ONE FOR ME.
AND PERHAPS THE GRADING PLAN THAT'S COME FORWARD HERE IS IS PERFECTLY REASONABLE AND A GOOD USE FOR THE SITE WOULD POTENTIALLY PREPARE IT FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT, AS COUNCILLOR KONGE NOTED, AND COULD BE GOOD.
BUT THE TOUGH THING IS, IS LIKE AS AN APPLICATION FOR A QUARRY.
I MEAN, I JUST DON'T THINK THAT'S THE BEST USE FOR THE SITE.
SO I THINK ULTIMATELY I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED TODAY.
I'D BE MORE ALIGNED WITH THE IDEA OF OF, LIKE I SAID, A COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT OR A PROCESS FOR WHICH, YOU KNOW, THE CITY DETERMINES HOW WE'RE GOING TO DEAL WITH APPLICANTS WHO WANT TO DEVELOP LAND IN THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT ZONE.
I MEAN, IT'S AN INTERESTING QUESTION.
IF WE'VE GOT UP TO 30 PEOPLE WHO ALL OWN LAND IN THESE KINDS OF ZONES, IT JUST SEEMS TO ME A PROBLEM THAT WE NEED TO WORK OUT, LIKE COUNCILLOR KONGE NOTED.
I THINK THAT'S MY COMMENTS FOR NOW.
THANK YOU. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? COUNCILLOR WILLIAMS, ARE YOU LOOKING TO MODIFY YOUR PROPOSAL.
YOU DIDN'T NEED TO SPEAK FURTHER TO THAT.
I'D LIKE TO OPEN IT UP FOR SOME DISCUSSION.
SORRY. WE'LL JUST DO SEE ABOUT ONE MORE.
JUST DO FIRST ROUND OF COMMENTS.
JUST SEEING IF ANYBODY ELSE HAS INITIAL COMMENTS.
YEAH, THIS IS IT'S A LOT TO SORT OF PROCESS ALL IN ONE SITTING, ESPECIALLY AS IT SEEMS THAT MANY OTHERS HAVE BEEN HAVING BACKGROUND CONVERSATIONS ABOUT THIS WITH THE PROPONENT AND I HAVE NOT HAD THE PLEASURE.
SO TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE LAYERS OF WHAT THIS IS REALLY ABOUT.
[01:25:04]
I. IT SEEMS THAT SOME OF THE ARGUMENTS BEING MADE HERE TODAY ARE THAT, YOU KNOW, THIS IS JUST A MATTER OF A PRIVATE DEVELOPER HAVING A PRIVATE LOT, WANTS TO DO WHATEVER HE WANTS TO DO ON IT.AND THE CITY AND REGULATORS ARE STANDING IN THE WAY.
AND I WOULD COUNTER THAT THE CITY DOES HAVE AN INTEREST IN THIS ISSUE, EVEN THOUGH IT'S A PRIVATE LOT, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T HAD THE PUBLIC DISCUSSIONS YET ABOUT ABOUT ZONING.
BUT IT IS, YOU KNOW, HOW THIS WHAT IS DONE HERE IMPACTS RESIDENTS, PUBLIC USE OF LAND IN SURROUNDING AREAS, HOW WE ORGANIZE OUR CITY.
SO SOME SPECIFIC EXAMPLES I THOUGHT OF OF HOW WHATEVER HAPPENS ON THIS LOT IMPACTS OTHERS.
IT'S RIGHT BESIDE THE SAILING CLUB, IT'S RIGHT BESIDE THE SKI CLUB.
THOSE ARE AREAS WHICH ARE EXTREMELY WELL-USED BY THE PUBLIC AND PEOPLE HAVE AN INTEREST IN SOME INTENSIVE USE OF A PROPERTY THAT'S RIGHT BESIDE THAT. ALSO, THE BROADER CONTEXT OF HOW THIS CITY TRIES TO ENSURE PUBLIC ACCESS TO WATERFRONT. THIS IS A BIG ISSUE THAT, YOU KNOW, DECADES AND DECADES OLD, THIS DISCUSSION OF HOW ARE WE GOING TO APPROACH THIS PROBLEM AS A CITY.
I KNOW THERE'S BEEN PROPOSALS IN THE PAST TO TRY TO HAVE, SAY, LIKE A MINE TO MINE TRAIL.
AND THAT CERTAINLY IMPACTS THE CITY IN TERMS OF WHAT SERVICES WE'RE GOING TO PROVIDE, WHAT RESIDENTS COME TO EXPECT THINGS WHEN THEY BUILD RESIDENCES, PLACES WITHIN CITY LIMITS. SO ALL OF THESE THINGS ARE IMPORTANT DISCUSSIONS.
AND SO I DON'T THINK IT'S HELPFUL TO EITHER JUST PRETEND THAT THIS IS RESOURCE EXTRACTION FOR THE PURPOSE OF RESOURCE EXTRACTION OR TO JUST PRETEND THAT IT'S JUST GRADING.
SO NOW WE HAVE TO FIX IT AT A VERY BASIC LEVEL SO IT CAN BE USABLE.
BUT THE BIG QUESTION HERE THAT NO ONE CAN ANSWER IS USABLE FOR WHAT? YOU KNOW, THE LANGUAGE IS USED OVER AND OVER AGAIN THAT CURRENTLY THIS PROPERTY IS UNUSABLE.
IT'S UNUSABLE, OF COURSE, IT'S USABLE FOR SOME THINGS, BUT IF IT'S UNUSABLE, UNUSABLE FOR WHAT? AND THAT GETS US INTO THE DISCUSSION OF WHAT ARE WE PLANNING TO DO ON THIS LOT? AND IS THIS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST? IS IT DOES IT FIT WITH OUR OVERALL PLANNING AND ZONING AND ALL OF THE OTHER THINGS THAT WE DO AS A CITY? AND I YOU KNOW, I'VE ALSO HEARD THE LAMENT THAT IF ONLY WE COULD ALL THINK, YOU KNOW, IF WE WERE ALL BUSINESS PEOPLE, WE WOULD ALL THINK WITH A BUSINESS LENS HERE.
BUT THE REALITY IS THAT'S NOT OUR ROLE.
WE'RE NOT WE'RE NOT PARTNERS WITH THE DEVELOPERS.
WE ARE HERE TO REPRESENT THE INTEREST OF THE ENTIRE PUBLIC.
WE NEED TO TREAT ALL PARTIES FAIRLY, INCLUDING DEVELOPERS.
BUT IT'S NOT OUR ROLE TO BE IN BUSINESS WITH KENNY, AND IT'S IT'S OUR ROLE TO TRY TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC INTEREST. AND I IN THIS I AGREE WITH COUNCILLOR MORSE THAT I THINK WE NEED TO STEP BACK.
AND THE MORE TRANSPARENT AND FAIR PROCESS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST WOULD BE TO STEP BACK.
AND IF IF AS WE'RE HEARING, THIS IS NOT REALLY ABOUT RESOURCE EXTRACTION AND HAVING A QUARRY, THEN WHAT IS IT ABOUT? AND LET'S FOLLOW THAT LINE OF QUESTIONING AND HAVE THAT DISCUSSION ABOUT WHETHER THAT'S IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST.
ANY FURTHER COMMENTS FOR ROUND ONE? FOR MYSELF SO WE ARE LOOKING AT BYLAW 4404 AS OPPOSED TO A CURRENT ONE.
AND SO MY APOLOGIES, I HAD THE SECTION UP.
[01:30:06]
SO IN MAKING A DECISION ON AN APPLICATION FOR A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED USE, COUNCIL MAY APPROVE THE APPLICATION IF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS BYLAW WITH OR WITHOUT CONDITIONS BASED ON THE MERITS OF THE APPLICATION, THE COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACTS AND OTHER PLANS AND POLICIES FOR THE SITE.AND WHEN REVIEWING IT, COUNCIL SHALL HAVE REGARD TO THE CIRCUMSTANCE AND MERITS OF THE APPLICATION.
SO FOR THIS ONE, I THINK THAT THE THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES WON'T BE IMPACTED BY WITH UNDER THOSE CONDITIONS THE DESIGN, CHARACTER AND APPEARANCE OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE IT STILL HAVING THE SETBACK AND HAVING TREES FROM THE SHORE.
I THINK IT STILL HAS THE SHORELINE IS THE PUBLIC PART THAT PEOPLE WILL SEE.
AND SO IT'S STILL GOING TO HAVE THAT THE CHARACTER AND APPEARANCE OF THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES AND THEN TREATMENT PROVIDED TO THE SITE CONSIDERATIONS INCLUDING LANDSCAPING, SCREENING, PARKING, LOADING, OPEN SPACES, LIGHTING AND SIGNS.
AGAIN, I THINK IT'S KIND OF WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED IS REMOVING ROCK AND IT'S A BIT OF A SANDWICH WITH THE A GIANT BUFFER BETWEEN WHERE IT'S GOING TO BE TAKEN AND THE HIGHWAY.
AND THEN A BIT OF A BUFFER FROM THE THE LAKE SIDE 4404 ALSO TALKS ABOUT NOTWITHSTANDING ANY PROVISIONS OR REQUIREMENTS OF THIS BYLAW, COUNCIL MAY ESTABLISH A MORE STRINGENT STANDARD FOR CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED USE WHEN COUNCIL DEEMS IT NECESSARY TO DO SO.
SO FOR ME, I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT WE BASICALLY KEEP CONDITIONS L WITH THE REVISION TO TEN YEARS BASED ON SOME COMMENTS BEFORE M AND P, Q AND TWO.
AND MY REASONS FOR THAT IS A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J AND K ARE ALREADY REQUIRED UNDER THE ZONING BYLAW.
SO I DON'T LIKE ADDING REDUNDANT CONDITIONS TO DEVELOPMENT PERMITS.
AND I KNOW WE WERE, YOU KNOW, NEIGHBORHOODS IN THE PAST HAVE REQUESTED THAT WE ADD REDUNDANT CLAUSES, BUT FOR ME IN 4404, IT'S SECTION 3.1.4 THAT SAYS THAT THE THAT THE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT STILL HAS TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH TERRITORIAL AND FEDERAL LEGISLATION AND THE AGENCIES.
SO THAT'S WHERE I THINK WE'RE BEING REDUNDANT IF WE CALL ALL THOSE POINTS OUT AND THAT'S WHERE L AND M ARE ABOUT AN END STORY ARE ABOUT THE TIME PERIOD AND THE ZONING BYLAW IT DOESN'T HAVE ANY CONDITIONS REGARDING THAT.
SO THAT'S WHERE I THINK COUNCIL NEEDS TO TO PUT IN CONDITIONS.
BUT I'M SUPPORTIVE OF, OF HAVING A TIME LIMIT FOR THE NATURAL RESOURCE EXTRACTION.
O I THINK IS WOULD BE ADDRESSED ELSEWHERE.
AGAIN, I THINK IT'S A CONDITION THAT SHOULD BE SHOULD BE ADDRESSED BY COUNCIL.
THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT MAY HAVE THESE CONDITIONS IN IT, BUT I DON'T THINK IT'S COUNCIL'S POLITICAL JOB TO WEIGH IN ON WHAT SHOULD BE IN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, WHICH IS WHY MY MOTION WOULD BE THAT OR MY RECOMMENDATION THAT THE MOTION THAT GOES FORWARD TO COUNCIL SAYS THE COUNCIL APPROVE THE PROPOSED NATURAL RESOURCE EXTRACTION USE ON A PORTION OF LOT 4 BLOCK 316 AS A CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED USE IN THE GM GROWTH MANAGEMENT ZONE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS AND I USING THE SAME POLICY PRINCIPLES IS WHEN I REVIEWED THE THE [INAUDIBLE] APPLICATION WAS THAT COUNCIL DIDN'T WEIGH IN ON ALL THE TECHNICAL ASPECTS THAT STAFF ARE GOING TO HAVE TO STILL REVIEW FROM THE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT.
[01:35:09]
WE ARE JUST APPROVING THE USE AND THE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT STILL NEEDS TO BE IN THE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT STILL HAS TO BE REVIEWED BY STAFF AND HAS TO FOLLOW ALL THE OTHER CONDITIONS OF ZONING BYLAW NUMBER 4404.SO I'M JUST NOT RECOMMENDING THAT THAT COUNCIL SET CONDITIONS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.
COUNCILLOR WILLIAMS. YEAH, THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.
YEAH, I THINK THAT'S VERY MUCH IN THE SPIRIT OF SORT OF WHAT I WAS PROPOSING THERE TOO AS WELL.
I HEAR YOU AROUND SOME OF THE EXTRA PROVISIONS.
I THINK WITH THAT BEING SAID, YOU KNOW, I COULD COME AROUND TO SUPPORTING THIS ONE AS WELL.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT WOULD BE IN YOUR AMENDMENT THAT POINT SIX FOR YOU, I GUESS.
LIKE, SAY, FOR EXAMPLE, THERE WASN'T A DETERMINED LOCATION.
IS THERE OPTIONS FOR AGGREGATE FOR A PERIOD OF TIME TO BE STORED UPON THE LOT OR WHATNOT? WOULD THAT STILL WOULD THAT HINDER THE DEVELOPMENT? YOU KNOW, IF THERE'S NOT A PLAN, OF COURSE, I THINK THE PROPONENT WOULD LIKE TO START THIS SUMMER, BUT SAY IF THERE WASN'T A PLAN TO WHERE THE AGGREGATE IS GOING, IS THAT GOING TO BE A MAJOR ROADBLOCK? AND IS THERE PROVISIONS TO STORE, SAY, MATERIAL ON THE LOT ITSELF? AND WOULD THAT STILL SATISFY MAYOR ALTY'S AMENDMENT.
I'LL ASK MS. WHITE IF SHE'D LIKE TO WEIGH IN ON THIS ONE.
THE STORAGE OF BULK ROCK ON SITE WOULD BE TAKEN CARE OF THROUGH THAT QUARRY AND LAND USE PERMIT, IDENTIFYING WHERE, IF POSSIBLE, ON SITE THAT IS TO BE STORED OR WHERE OFFSITE IT IS TO BE STORED.
SO I COULD NOT TELL YOU AT THIS TIME IF THERE IS AN APPROPRIATE PLACE OR NOT.
THANK YOU. WELL, AT LEAST IT SEEMS LIKE THERE WOULD BE OPTIONS FOR THE PROPONENT.
SO I FEEL SATISFIED WITH THAT, THAT IT'S NOT GOING TO BE TO TOO CHALLENGING.
SO YEAH, ANYWAY, I'M IN SUPPORT OF MAYOR ALTY'S REVISIONS AND CERTAINLY APPRECIATE THE SPIRIT OF IT.
I GUESS JUST A POINT OF CLARIFICATION FROM ADMIN, BECAUSE I THINK IN THE THE PROPOSED MOTION, THERE IS A CONDITION ABOUT THE NATURAL RESOURCE EXTRACTION USE IS DETERMINED TO BE A QUARRY AND FOR THE PURPOSE . DO WE HAVE TO, FOR A CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED PERSPECTIVE, DICTATE WHAT NATURAL RESOURCE EXTRACTION WE'RE ALLOWING ON THE LOT OR THAT COUNCIL'S APPROVING THE PROPOSED NATURAL RESOURCE EXTRACTION? AND UNDER THE ZONING BYLAW IT HAS THE DEFINITION WHICH INCLUDES MINING, QUARRYING REMOVAL AND OR EXCAVATION OF ANY MINERAL ORE BODY.
MS. BASSI-KELLETT. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.
I BELIEVE NOT, BUT I'LL ASK MS. WHITE TO CLARIFY.
I WOULD ARGUE YOU DON'T NEED TO.
YOU OBVIOUSLY COULD, SHOULD YOU WISH.
BUT BECAUSE QUARRYING IS THE ONLY USE LISTED THERE THAT IS PERMITTED.
I WOULD SAY YOU'RE OK TO JUST SAY NATURAL RESOURCE EXTRACTION.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMENTS? IS THERE GENERAL SUPPORT FOR BRINGING FORWARD MY REVISED WORDING TO COUNCIL, SEEING MAJORITY OF NODDING HEADS? SO YEAH, YOU CAN ALSO VOTE AGAINST IT OR OR MODIFY AND MORE TIME.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO. YEAH. YEAH.
NO. ALL WE NEEDED WAS A MAJORITY TO BRING FORWARD THAT.
SO THEN WE CAN AT LEAST DO AMENDMENTS BASED ON THIS VERSUS AMENDING A WHOLE BUNCH MORE WHEN WE'RE
[01:40:01]
CLAUSES STILL CAN BE ADDED IN REMOVED ETC..JUST MAKING SURE THAT WE HAVE QUORUM FOR STUFF.
WE COULD CALL A SPECIAL COUNCIL ON MONDAY, JULY 18TH AT 7 P.M..
MS. BASSI-KELLETT. WOULD THAT WORK FOR STAFF? THANK YOU VERY MUCH MADAM CHAIR. I'M SURE.
AND COUNCIL SEEMS TO BE HERE FOR JULY SO AT LEAST WE GOT MAJORITY.
SO WE WILL CALL A SPECIAL COUNCIL.
WITH THAT THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS AN IN-CAMERA ITEM.
[IN CAMERA]
IF I CAN GET A MOTION TO MOVE IN CAMERA TO DISCUSS A MEMORANDUM REGARDING WHETHER TO APPOINT MEMBERS TO SERVE ON THE MAYOR'S TASK FORCE ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.MOVE BY COUNCILLOR MUFANDAEDZA SECONDED BY COUNCILLOR PAYNE.
ANYBODY OPPOSED? SEEING NONE WE CAN GO IN CAMERA.
AND BUSINESS ARISING FROM IN-CAMERA IS TO APPOINT THE FOLLOWING MEMBERS TO THE MAYOR'S TASK FORCE ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: FOR TOURISM JOE BAILEY, FOR MINERALS KELLY BRUNTON, FOR AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES KYLE THOMAS, FOR AVIATION, TRANSPORTATION AND LOGISTICS PETER HOWLING, FOR POST-SECONDARY PATRICK ARSENAULT, BUSINESS OWNER SEAN EVANS, [INAUDIBLE] CORPORATION JOHN HENDERSON, THE YELLOWKNIFE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE ROBERT [INAUDIBLE], FOR THE NWT AND NUNAVUT CHAMBER OF MINES [INAUDIBLE] KENNY [INAUDIBLE], FOR [INAUDIBLE] AND AN ADDITIONAL REP AS DEEMED APPROPRIATE BY COUNCIL IS MARK [INAUDIBLE].
WE'LL BRING IT FORWARD ON MONDAY, JULY 18TH AT 7 P.M..
WITH THAT, IF I CAN GET A MOTION TO ADJOURN AND MOVE BY COUNCILLOR KONGE, SECONDED BY COUNCILLOR PAYNE, ANYBODY OPPOSED? SEEING NONE AND WE DEALT WITH ALL OF OUR COUNCIL ISSUES WITH OUR SPECIAL COUNCIL AT 12:05.
SO THE NEXT SCHEDULED MEETING IS GBC, WHICH IS MONDAY, JULY 11TH.
SEE YOU ALL THEN.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.