Prince Rupert City Council is asking the Prince Rupert Port Authority to rigorously consult the community over its Land Use Management Plan, while at the same time hopes to create a waterfront plan of its own.
During Monday evening’s regular council meeting, City Planner Zeno Krekic said it is important that the Port allow the same voices that helped form and shape the City’s Quality of Life Official Community Plan and Zoning Bylaw be heard when finalizing a Land Use Management Plan.
“The Port’s Land Use Management Plan recognizes the Quality of Life principles but remains silent on policies, specifically as relating to Section 2 (Respecting and Enjoying the Environment). In other words the desire the community expressed in the OCP for access to the waterfront is guarded in the Port Land Use Management Plan with phrases such as ‘that does not negatively affect Port marine safety’ and ‘to the extent this is feasible’,” Krekic told council.
It is true that the Zoning Bylaw and the Port’s industrial use plans are congruent, he continued, but the community expressed in the OCP it wanted more, not less, access to the water.
Because port lands fall under federal jurisdiction, provincial and municipal land use regulations do not apply to them.
“OCP, Zoning or Development Permit Area regulations have been held by the courts to be inapplicable to particular lands purely because the federal government owns it, including lands occupied by tenants and not necessarily used for any federal purposes,” Krekic explained.
In other words, if there’s a conflict between the City’s OCP and land use plan for the waterfront, and that of the Port’s, the Port takes precedent.
On April 11, 2011, the Port made a power point presentation, bringing the City up to date on its plans, and followed up by providing a draft of the plan to the City on May 17.
The draft plan was also shared with the public on the Port’s website on June 1, inviting comments, and at a public meeting on June 15.
According to Councillor Joy Thorkelson, council’s own discussion of a waterfront plan was put on hold about a year ago.
On Monday evening she suggested it was time to resume the discussion.
“I don’t want to start a fight with the Port, but certainly we need to have similar ideas as to how our waterfront is going to be used. We should be sitting down and talking both with our citizens and the Port about what we want to happen at the waterfront,” she said.
Councillor Kathy Bedard said the City has to look to the future.
“I think our motion states that we are encouraging the Port. The Port is a good corporate citizen and we’re asking them to go to the community to listen to individuals, so not necessarily do questions have to come up from this table, but individuals can go directly to the Port and say access to the waterfront and to those beaches is important,” Bedard said.
Councillor Sheila Gordon-Payne, while in favour of Krekic’s motion, said even if the City develops a waterfront plan it would be limited.
“There are very few water parcels that are ours, and there’s not a lot of land that is ours, so it’s the same type of influencing process that we’d be doing right now anyway as I see it. I would ask that council participate as community stakeholders,” Gordon-Payne said.
In the end however, Thorkelson made an additional motion, tasking staff with facilitating discussions toward a waterfront plan.
“I’m not in favour of us leaving it in the hands of the Port. I think we need a solid idea of how we want the waterfront developed as a council so that we have a basis to have discussions with the Port,” she said.
Gordon-Payne said her comments were from a practicality perspective.
“We are finished meetings for the summer. We have maybe one or two in September and will have an election in November. I’m not sure when practically speaking we’ll have a completed waterfront plan and would not expect the Port and the Port stakeholders will wait until the City’s ready with a finished product. I think we want to have a say, and that we need to take every opportunity we have, and this is a good start for me,” she said.
At the end of the discussion, however, Thorkelson’s motion for the City to develop its own plan was passed unanimously.