Despite making a decision on which way to move forward with the Gospel Rock neighbourhood plan, Gibsons council remains divided with a week to go before the municipal election.
With a packed gallery looking on, council voted in favour of option B, which calls for no waterfront development and a small park area around the upper lookout area. That option was supported by 59.4 per cent of the 524 complete and valid surveys that were collected during the summer and was the chosen recommendation of the Gospel Rock select committee.
The decision was not unanimous. Mayor Barry Janyk and councillors LeeAnn Johnson and Bob Curry voted in favour, while councillors Gerry Tretick and Chris Koopmans voted against.
The tone of the night was quickly set during the first inquiries session when Gibsons resident Tim Turner asked council for a simple 'yes' or 'no' answer to the question of whether "after completing an exhaustive three-year process, is this council going to follow its select committee's recommendation to protect all of the Gospel Rock waterfront land from any development?"
Janyk said he has stated clearly that he would honour both the community's and the select committee's recommendations.
"I will protect the waterfront, the trails, the slopes and the viewpoints of Gospel Rock," Janyk said, to loud applause, which the mayor quickly curtailed. "This is a council meeting, not a circus. That's enough, folks."
Johnson said, as the council representative on the select committee, she fully supports the recommendation.
Curry said it was a very complex question that was difficult to give a simple yes or no answer to.
"It bothers me that you've asked for a simple answer, because there is no real, simple answer. However, I respect the decision of the select committee with some reservations," said Curry. "I feel the waterfront and the upland part that are already protected (and we have legal opinion to that effect) should continue to be protected. I think we should move forward with a recommendation from the select committee."
Tretick accused many in the gallery, some of whom represented the Friends of Gospel Rock, for choosing political opportunism over what is right for the community as a whole. Tretick was referring to a paid ad from Friends of Gospel Rock that was published in the Oct. 31 edition of Coast Reporter stating that a decision on Gospel Rock would be made at the Tuesday night council meeting, despite the fact it was not on the original agenda and was only added by council at the start of the meeting.
"I know where this particular group is going, and I'm very upset by some of the statements in that ad that misrepresent what I said in this council chambers," said a clearly frustrated Tretick. "I don't appreciate that you are putting us on the spot without us having all the information. The committee has done their job, and I respect the job they have done, but to me there are two elements that need to be completed - council's responsibility to the whole community and consensus from the developers. It takes all three working together to move this forward."
Koopmans was also upset with what he felt was proper public process not being followed.
"What I got from the survey was that people rejected plan A, but not so much gravitated to plan B," said Koopmans. "Council decided we wanted to have two plans. For me, personally, I have never gotten the density issue correct in my mind. I'm not necessarily rejecting plan B, but there are a lot of issues that need to be dealt with in plan B. We wanted to hold a committee of the whole between council and the select committee. It takes hours, like we did today.
"I still want to have the opportunity to talk to the select committee further. All I can say from my standpoint is that we don't want waterfront development, and we need to take plan B and refine it. That's why last council meeting I asked for a pause before giving our consultant the go-ahead for plan B, and I'm asking for that pause again tonight."
Council revisited the issue later in the night when Tretick suggested a motion to continue the public process to its completion.
"I think the general public should have equal opportunity to hear from the select committee," Tretick said. "It is not on the agenda this evening, yet somehow someone found out and put an ad in the newspaper, but everyone else who has a special interest in this is not here tonight. We should follow proper process.
"I'm not against that motion of the select committee, but I'm really concerned that democratic process is not being followed. Put it on the agenda, your worship, in a proper fashion, and I'll be behind you all the way."
Janyk countered by saying council indicated at the Oct. 21 council meeting that they wanted a meeting with their consultant, which took place Tuesday morning.
"You got the meeting that you requested. Council received further information, and there will be further opportunity for the public to get more details and provide input," Janyk said. "This council and I have been accused in the past of not making decisions when the time is right. Well, it's decision time."
Koopmans said the meeting with the consultant earlier in the day was very valuable with a good exchange of ideas between council, staff and the consultant. He said delaying a decision until the next council meeting on Nov. 18 is not an unreasonable request.
"It would be fruitful for the community to know what they are getting into with plan A or plan B," he said. "I feel very uncomfortable without having full disclosure with the public, and that's what you are asking me to do tonight. I am not in favour of waterfront development. I would prefer to continue with the direction from the last meeting. By making this motion tonight, it does not mean any plan is in place. Delaying it is not really delaying it at all."
Director of planning Chris Marshall said the next two phases could take up to four months to complete.
"Plan refinement, phasing and implementation calls for more work from the select committee, the consultant, staff and the community," Marshall said. "It includes things like phasing, implementation, servicing, releasing the plan by way of open house. I estimate that could take up to two months. Once we have the final plan, we move onto the final phase, which is going through the bylaw process to amend the official community plan (OCP) to incorporate this plan into the OCP and go through the public hearing and all the steps around that. It could mean another two months before adoption." Tretick's motion to delay a decision was defeated, with Janyk, Curry and Johnson opposed.
Following that, Johnson put forward a motion that council move forward with the committee's recommendation for plan B.
"The committee has done their job. The information has been available; it's been posted on the website," she said. "I do believe there will be ongoing public consultation. There is no reason to delay this further. It's time to make a decision."
Curry said he was quite happy to proceed with plan B and continue to work with the committee.
"I'm confident that the public will have ample input into the process. I will vote in favour of this recommendation," he said.
Koopmans restated that he was not in favour of waterfront development but still could not support the vote.
"As a councillor, I've been very uncomfortable with the density issues and the word 'refine' and I can not support the plan. It's for that reason only that I'm voting against plan B," he said.
