With tension thick in the boardroom, with accusations of lies and corruption, slander flying back and forth, and despite 3L Developments’ last-minute tactic through Mano Theos to salvage their Riverwood subdivision, the application to amend the Regional Growth Strategy failed on a 6-4 vote
Tomorrow: In moments of high drama, directors reveal themselves
It took a dramatic three-hour board meeting fraught with accusations of lies, corruption and slander, unruly citizens standing and shouting from the gallery, several points of order and a last-minute, desperate power play, but the Comox Valley Regional District finally denied, with a 6-4 vote, an application by 3L Developments to amend the Regional Growth Strategy in their favor.
The tension was already thick in the cramped CVRD boardroom when Kathleen Pitt stepped to the podium to speak in favor of the 3L application, and then her animosity toward the board took the atmosphere to a whole other level.
Pitt attacked the board for fumbling 3L’s bid to build about 1,000 houses in the Puntledge River triangle, near Stotan Falls, suggesting there were “back room deals” and said directors told “lies” and insinuated widespread “corruption” at the CVRD.
When Pitt referenced a human rights violation by a director not at the board table, Cumberland Director Gwyn Sproule called for a “point of order,” suggesting the comments crossed over into slander. Area A Director and Board Chair Bruce Joliffe paused the meeting and Pitt eventually apologized.
But the dramatics were just getting underway.
Speaking against the 3L application, Lisa Christensen accused 3L of bullying and other nefarious tactics to force the CVRD into approving their Riverwood subdivision. That caused a man in the gallery to stand, point at the speaker and shout, “This isn’t slander?”
Joliffe stopped the meeting again to tell everyone to “calm down.” The man grabbed his coat and left the room, and not long after that Pitt also left with other 3L supporters.
The board eventually got down to business and the gallery quieted down, temporarily.
On the table were reports from the CVRD Technical Advisory Committee and the 3L Steering Committee that both recommended the board deny the 3L application at first reading. You can read the reports here or here.
But 3L had also asked the board to postpone first reading and extend the timeframe for considering their application by around six months. Company spokesperson Mark Holland said the company had applied in 2014 when certain studies on traffic and environmental concerns weren’t required as they are in 2017. 3L has not completed these studies.
That’s when Alternate Area C Director Curtis Scoville brought a sharp focus to the board discussion.
Scoville said it sounded like the board was discussing two separate issues: one, the application by 3L to amend the RGS to create a new settlement node; and, two, a desire by some directors to review and update the RGS.
“Shouldn’t we treat these two separately?” he asked.
Alana Mullaly, the CVRD’s Manager of Planning Services, responded that the key difference between Scoville’s two issues was that an RGS document would be reviewed when the board felt key principles were no longer valid, that it’s goals weren’t current or that the community no longer shared a value expressed in the RGS.
But, she said, the CVRD’s Regional Growth Strategy is the only RGS in the province that allows applications for amendment from a private third party, such as 3L. In the other regional districts, only a member municipality — for example, Comox, Cumberland or Courtenay — could apply to amend an RGS.
Comox Director Barbara Price then made a motion to approve the staff recommendation to deny the 3L application.
But before the board finishing discussing the motion and called for a vote, Courtenay Director Mano Theos suddenly announced he had “new information from the applicant.”
That surprised everyone because it was the first indication from Theos that he had such information. He was seated directly in front of the 3L owner and representatives, about three feet away.
Theos asked the board to allow 3L spokesperson Mark Holland, a Vancouver urban planner hired by the company just days before the meeting, to speak.
Holland told the board that if it proceeded to a vote on first reading, as per Price’s motion, without first considering 3L’s request for a postponement and extension, then 3L would withdraw its application entirely. He said the company didn’t want to be judged on 2017 requirements when they had applied in 2014.
The gallery, which by that time comprised mostly 3L opponents, rose back to life with rumblings of delight: “Perfect, withdraw,” and “exactly what we want.”
After much more discussion, Erik Eriksson voted with Larry Jangula, Mano Theos and Ken Grant to oppose the motion, but the six other directors voted in favor.
3L Developments can still reapply to amend the RGS, but they have a narrow window to do so.
The CVRD is itself in the process of amending the Regional Growth Strategy to no longer allow private party applications to amend the document. That will bring the Valley’s RGS in line with the province’s other regional districts.
That amendment could pass as early as next month.
“Company spokesperson Mark Holland said the company had applied in 2014 when certain studies on traffic and environmental concerns weren’t required as they are in 2017.” That is not entirely accurate. The studies were done and submitted in 2014 but Holland wanted to submit more current studies. IMO – you can’t have it both ways. Fees for this process and all documentation is based on the 2014 application which was ‘grandfathered’. You can’t change the rules in the middle of the game. Either the application is processed according to the criteria in 2014 or new info. has to go under a new application – in which case they have to pay according to the 2018 fee schedule and any new information has to be attached to a new application. Besides that, the meeting was about an RGS amendment, not the details of 3Ls development.
Questions to a confusing issue:
1.) Does 3L hold title to this entire piece of land? I am assuming yes.
2.) Are there legal restrictions as to what can be done with this land? Could they log the entire area? Are they within their right to fence in their entire property?
3.) Could they deny public access to the Falls?
4.) Is the origin of the conflict directly tied back to Provincial legislation or lack of it? Is this going to be a future, expensive legal case?
Debbie Baier on 10/03/2018 at 3:47 pm
Questions to a confusing issue:
1.) Does 3L hold title to this entire piece of land? I am assuming yes.
>>> Yes generally speaking except for a piece of crown land down stream from Goat Island and the Duncan Bay Logging Road Right of Way (RoW) across the BC Hydro penstock pipeline RoW and West; across the bridge and just about up to the yellow gate.being owned by Timber West and whomever controls the Weldwood lands on the south side of the river upstream from the bridge. In other words the areas not in dark green on the map.
Also I note that the map shown appears to be incorrect. On the bottom of the map the river appears to indicate that the river bed is controlled by 3L as it is marked in Dark Blue. The centre line of the river is used to divide adjacent properties when property owners each own the river beds. Consequently it seems to me that 3L would not own the river underneath the logging road bridge as that area is within the TimberWest logging road RoW. Further the river would be divided by between 3L, the Crown and Weldwoods’s governing company where they come in contact in the portion of the river from below the bridge heading upstream. A similar situation would occur wherever 3L’s property line comes in contact with Crown Land and the lands below Grieves Crescent to the North of the Browns and Puntledge Rivers. If this is the case then the map implies restricted access in areas that are not under 3L’s control.<<<>> yes RU-20 zoning restricts what can be done on the property as do provincial and federal regulation (Riparian zone infringement, deleterious run off into fish bearing rivers, wetland destruction, gravel mining without a permit, illegal dumping. . . . An agreement of passage of Timber West vehicles through the property is held by the property owner on the opposite side of the river which also straddles the logging road so it is probable there is a similar agreement across 3L’s lands.<<>> These three – quarter section sized lots are zoned RU-20 meaning the minimum size lot that could be subdivided out of each approximately 160 acre lot is 20 ha or 50 acres apiece with 2 houses on each. This valuable RU-20 zoning designation allows for various rural small business opportunities to be undertaken. Trees plantation, soft fruit production, green houses, Maple syrup tapping, saw mills, gravel extraction etc. Here is the link to the zoning for this property.
RU-20 Zoning Description: CONSOLIDATED Bylaw No. 2781 – “Comox Valley Zoning Bylaw, 2005” Page 81
SOURCE: https://www.comoxvalleyrd.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/bylaws/2781_zoning_bylaw_2005_consolidated.pdf <<<>> Yes with provisions about wetlands , fish bearing creeks and Riparian setbacks for instance. <<>> Totally within their right <<>> To the main falls below the bridge? Yes. They already have once. To the river under the bridge and portions of the falls above the bridge? No. <<>> The origin of this conflict predates British Columbia. There was a promise by Sir John A McDonald in 1883(?) to build a Transcontinental Railroad to the Colony of BC and Vancouver Island as the enticement for them to join with the other provinces in the Confederation of Canada. Or thereabouts.
The enticement for building the railroad was the granting of title to 1/5th of the island’s subsurface and surface mineral and timber rights and land fee simple to be sold by the contractor (The E&N Railway) to finance the surveying, grading and building of the railway on Vancouver Island, which, in the day, was going to connect to Vancouver Island via Seymour Inlet north of Campbell River down the east side terminating in Esquimalt (Victoria). The river beds were part and parcel of the land grant and have been sold with the properties or held back by the parent companies. In this case the river bed (not water column with belongs to the Province) was sold with the surface rights to 3L by Timber West. But as I have never seen 3L’s title don’t quote me on that 😉
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Railway_of_Vancouver_Island
Is this going to be a future, expensive legal case? >>> time will tell . . . <<<