About 75 Target Marine Hatcheries supporters overflowed Sechelt council chambers at the official community plan (OCP) public hearing June 23.
The crowd of supporters staged a rally outside before the hearing carrying signs that read, "Support Sechelt jobs" and "Target smells better than Sechelt council."
Once the OCP hearing started, the group moved inside, still holding signs well within council's view at the back of the full meeting room.
The purpose of the hearing was to give residents a chance to speak about amendments made to Sechelt's new OCP since it was last presented to the public in February. Among the changes, were slight variances to sewer and commercial areas, some mapping changes and text changes. However, it was one text change in particular that dominated the public comments - the text regarding Target's site on Sechelt Inlet Road.
"I just want to highlight on page 114, it says that location is designated for fish hatchery and specifically says no processing is allowed," said Andre Boel, community planner. "People may have seen a document where the last part was crossed out and it was about to be changed, because a couple of weeks ago, it looked like there might have been a final decision, but that did not happen."
The possible change Boel referred to was in anticipation of Target's needed OCP amendment getting final reading, which at the time looked favourable. Later the amendment was left hanging at fourth reading when council voted to send the issue to referendum.
Four of only five speakers who took the microphone at the hearing talked about Target's OCP text change.
Jim Cleghorn, president of the Sechelt Chamber of Commerce, spoke about several changes to the OCP he was in favour of, but chastised council for the Target change, saying they may force the company out of Sechelt.
Clark Hamilton spoke on behalf of the Coast Community Builders Association, again addressing the group's displeasure with council's treatment of Target and the wording of the OCP.
One resident spoke about the sewer containment area changes, and also noted she did not support the wording around Target Marine's site, saying their application is still undergoing due process at the District.
She asked that the section saying "no processing" be taken out of the new OCP.
Target manager Justin Henry also expressed his displeasure with the wording in the OCP and urged council to allow Target to process sturgeon for caviar, noting he had done basically the same process the week before when the company spawned the first white sturgeon in Canada. The act is admissible under the company's current zoning. The only difference, Henry said, is that the eggs were placed in jars and allowed to hatch, rather than put into tins.
"The OCP isn't acceptable written as is, and I urge you to move ahead with the public process, without stalling, without abdicating your responsibilities, and take it ahead. Have fourth reading on the OCP change that Target Marine has proposed so you don't have to go back and change this OCP again," Henry said. "It will be changed. It's just a matter of time, whether it's this council or - once those that abdicated responsibilities are no longer on council - another council."
Referendum date set
At the June 22 committee of the whole meeting, councillors endorsed a referendum question for the Target Marine issue. The question reads: "Are you in favour of District of Sechelt council adopting bylaws to permit the processing of sturgeon and sturgeon roe, on site at 7333 Sechelt Inlet Road, pursuant to the application submitted by Target Marine Hatcheries Ltd.?"
The referendum will run simultaneously with this year's municipal election on Nov. 19. The results of the referendum will be non-binding.
Before the question was agreed upon by the majority of council, some expressed their displeasure with the referendum.
Coun. Ann Kershaw said she was "totally opposed to the referendum" no matter what wording the question held.
"We should be making that decision at this table. We have four councillors that are going to force our residents to not only do our job, but to charge them $10,000 to do so, and I don't think that's going to be very popular," Kershaw said.
Coun. Keith Thirkell noted the referendum would cost far less as it is being held simultaneously with council elections.
Coun. Alice Lutes said she was "very strongly against" the referendum because it will be non-binding.
"I feel that the fact it's a non-binding referendum means we are wasting the general public's and our time by going forward with this on any ballot at any time," she said.
Before the vote was called on the referendum question, Coun. Warren Allan tried to introduce a motion to advance the date of the referendum or to "reintroduce the motion [Target bylaw amendments] immediately," because he said he was prepared to vote on it.
Originally the issue was sent to referendum because some on council seemed unable to make a decision without knowing the wishes of the entire community.
Council seemed confused as they were dealing with voting on the referendum question at the time. They called the vote on the referendum question, and it passed.
Allan tried to bring up his motion again, but it didn't receive a seconder so the motion died.
