An application for a storage building at Target Marine Hatcheries was denied at Sechelt council Nov. 2 because one councillor wanted more time to look closely at the drawings.
After trying to defer making a decision on issuing a development permit for Target's proposed 268 square metre storage and equipment building, Coun. Keith Thirkell said he would need more time to study the drawings before feeling able to vote.
"I need more time to consider the form and character. In the development permit we have, the application, the drawings are far too small. I would like to look at further length at the detail on the form and character," Thirkell said.
At the Oct. 19 council meeting, councillors voted four to two to defer the application until they could meet with their legal counsel on the matter.
That meeting took place, and at the Nov. 2 meeting Coun. Ann Kershaw tried to get council to make a decision, moving that they approve issuing the permit.
Coun. Alice Lutes seconded the motion, but Mayor Darren Inkster said he was concerned where a vote on that motion would go.
"We know where council was last time. I know there's been lots of discussion in-camera. I know where council appears to be on this. What happens if it doesn't proceed this evening? Is it better to look at a deferral what happens if it's defeated? I'm not hearing any movement from council members who are not supportive," Inkster said.
Corporate officer Jo-Anne Frank said the application could remain deferred, but that eventually some action would have to be taken.
Kershaw disagreed.
"No, I moved that we're going to approve it, so if you defeat that, you are not approving it," Kershaw said.
But Thirkell said even by voting against approving the application, the previous deferral motion would stand.
"In those deliberations with our legal team, one lawyer, the message that corporate officer Frank just related, is exactly what I heard, that if it is defeated it remains deferred and there is nothing wrong with allowing an issue like this to be deferred. There's lots of latitude under the community charter for municipalities and councils to do that," Thirkell said.
Coun. Alice Janisch tried to set the record straight, saying Thirkell and Frank were talking about motion 566 (to defer issuing the development permit until after conferring with legal counsel) but the motion on the floor was 565 (to issue the permit).
"I don't quite know what the problem is," added Kershaw. "I move that we issue this permit and no one has moved to defer it, which means to put off any decision. If this motion is defeated then you're saying 'no, we will not issue this permit,' that's what you're saying. You're not deferring it, you're saying no, and I think you might as well be very honest, if you're going to say no, say no. Don't keep deferring things. The public just isn't finding that too acceptable."
Thirkell held fast to his opinion.
"I don't think Coun. Kershaw heard what our corporate officer just said. If this motion 565 is defeated, it still stands as a deferred motion. Period," Thirkell said, to several cries of 'no' from other members of council.
Frank tried to explain.
"To confirm, what's on the floor right now is 565 and council will vote on that. As for Coun. Thirkell's question, the motion to defer was until after council conferred with its solicitors, so that's why it was brought up tonight because council had that opportunity. So then the appropriate action is to go back now and look at considering the development permit," she said, adding a separate motion to defer could have been brought forward by council.
Inkster called an end to the debate, saying council would "vote and see what happens," which is when Thirkell said he would need more time to look at the drawings.
When the vote was called, councillors Warren Allan, Janisch and Thirkell were against issuing the permit, while Kershaw, Lutes and Inkster were in favour.
"It's a tie vote, it's defeated," Inkster said.
