Council recently found itself between a rock and a hard place deciding how to handle an application to amend the land use bylaw to add a number of lots from the Valley Mobile Home Park as a permitted use in a flood fringe industrial district.
“I think we're in a no-win situation,” said Coun. Paul Isaac during the Dec. 14 meeting, which was heavily attended by several dozen residents.
In 2004, town council and staff allowed the park's owners — Blair and Gloria Jensen — to place different trailers on the property. But the present administration and council are concerned about the potential for flooding, the risk of fire quickly spreading through the trailer park and the issue of having residential properties in an industrial zone, he said.
“You're asking us to bypass those statements,” he said, addressing the crowd. “It's a no-win situation no matter what we do.”
Regardless of what decision council makes, it could potentially hurt something or somebody, whether it's businesses, residents or allowing the permitted use and then finding out it's not allowed, said Isaac, adding perhaps a one in 1,000 year flood will strike next year.
“We all know it can happen.”
Under the current legal non-conforming use designation, the town has already allowed for the trailer park, its residents don't have to go anywhere; however, they cannot rebuild or replace any units.
“If we leave it as is, and nobody has to move, maybe that is the best. I understand you don't like that, but I don't know — in light of all the other departments that have reported to us — if it's going to work for you.”
The councillor said he felt compelled to defeat the application to maintain the status quo so nobody has to move out.
“To me that protects everybody — I know it doesn't give them a chance to rebuild, but it protects them.”
Council ended up voting against a motion earlier put on the table by Coun. Chris Vardas to defeat the first reading of the proposed bylaw amendment. Council had also previously defeated a motion by Coun. Myron Thompson to immediately approve the bylaw amendment application for first reading.
“I want to get this amendment in, I want to get down to work to make it a safer place, I want to get on to the (flood) mitigation, I want to resolve this and start acting like good representatives,” said Thompson, who was opposed to tabling the issue, which would further delay a decision and thus accrue more cost.
Vardas asked whether Thompson would be willing to spend thousands of dollars in re-doing the municipal development plan and putting that on the taxpayers' dollar if council carried his motion to approve the land use bylaw amendment application.
Additionally, if the application was approved, the layout of the land at the trailer park could have to be changed drastically to be in compliance in order to get permits due to the property being located in a flood fringe, said Isaac.
“There's too many unknowns to say ‘go ahead', and there potentially could be too many costs to go ahead, on both sides. If it stays as it is today, nobody moves.”
Coun. Cheri Funke later motioned for council to refuse the application based on the planning and development department's review and comments that provide evidence that the proposed bylaw amendment to add certain lots from the park as permitted use in the flood plain industrial district does not meet council's strategic priorities, the town's municipal development plan, and is not supported by the town's legal advisor. That motion carried.
The applicants may come back in six months with a different application.
“We don't want to make an arbitrary decision that down the road might cause more problems,” Mayor Terry Leslie told the Round Up the day after the meeting.
“Making exceptions has to be done in a way that won't cause future councils and taxpayers problems.”
He's optimistic a workable solution can still be found, but wanted to dispel the notion that has emerged throughout this process that council wants to displace people from their homes at the trailer park.
“That's not at all the case — all of council wanted to make it crystal clear there is no intention to move people from their homes.”
Despite the frustrating circumstances, the crowd remained respectful and patient, he said.
“I'm very proud to live where I do.”
The opportunity for the Jensens to return with a new application to find a solution remains, but at their cost. Council had to draw the line in terms of cost incurred by taxpayers — if developers or landowners want something to come forward as change on land they own, they should have to pay for that, not the taxpayers as a whole, he said.
There must also be a chance to consult with surrounding property owners who conform to the industrial designation.
“We can't make changes without talking to them.”
