K
I
T
I
M
A
Sentinel
T
Northern
Years est. 1954
Volume 60 No. 04
Council sets out wording
www.northernsentinel.com
Wednesday, January 22, 2014
1.30 INCLUDES TAX
$
Some divided over length, clarity of question wording Cameron Orr Councillors settled on at least one question for an upcoming plebiscite in the community, but the decision was not unanimous. Namely some councillors felt the decidedupon question was too wordy and could be confusing to a voter. The question decided upon is: Do you support the final report recommendation of the Joint Review Panel of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Authority and National Energy Board, that the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project be approved, subject to 209 conditions set out in Volume 2 of the JRP’s final report? “I know that maybe it’s a little long, but by having the plebiscite question worded in such a fashion not only are we asking if you’re in favour of Enbridge Northern Gateway or not, we’re saying ‘are you in favour of the conclusions of the joint review panel?’” said Mario Feldhoff, who moved the wording. “I think it’s too confusing,” was Phil Germuth’s response to the wording, adding that not everybody will read the JRP report. But in councillor Mary Murphy’s opinion, it’s in the best interest of a voter to read the report before casting their vote. “People should be reading that report, agreeing with it or not agreeing with it is one thing, but at least they’re putting some meat into whatever decision that they’re making, so I’m in support of it,” she said. But Rob Goffinet was adamantly opposed to such a lengthy question. “We would be accused of ‘you must be kidding.’ This is like the referendum debate in Quebec on steroids. It must be a clear, easily understood question, that has no nuances,” he said. Edwin Empinado also reiterated what he has said in past meetings that he’d like to see more involvement from all sides of the debate in establishing the questions. The motion on the wording of the question passed, with Feldhoff, Mayor Joanne Monaghan, Empinado and Murphy in favour. The question regarding the question wasn’t the only debate to be had on the matter though. Further to that motion, councillors also moved to add “Undecided” to the list of possible responses on the ballot. “I think yes and no are a very difficult thing because I think many of us are against for one part of it and no for the other,” said Monaghan. “It would not give the exact answer that we want.” Continued on page 6
The Spirit Bear statue at the flag park outside of the Kitimat Chamber of Commerce and Visitor Information Centre. The proposed Crossroads development of a hotel and work camp may look to this property for access to theirs, but they promise even if things get moved, the town won’t be losing the park, or the Chamber.
Technical concerns laid out
Cameron Orr Comments have been coming in about the proposed Crossroads hotel and workers camp proposal for along Highway 37S — the camp itself would be invisible from the highway — but whether you’re for or against, many technical questions need to be worked out. Council held a public hearing on the proposal on January 13, to gather public opinion ahead of any changes to the Official Community Plan or zoning bylaws that would allow for its construction. Project proponent Stuart Ramsey for Bryton Group attended the meeting to answer questions, together with a engineer with Opus DaytonKnight. And following a question from Germuth, Ramsey did offer one alleviation to people concerned about the work camp side of the proposal; he said he would be open to a clause that would prevent them from building a work camp without also building a hotel at the same time. “We’re not camp developers, we’re
hoteliers. We have no real interest in doing a camp project other than help facilitate some of the cost and off-site levies that we’re going to be dealing with, with this development,” he said. The site has many challenges — he pointed out that the site has not been developed in the past because of high development costs — but access for traffic and sanitary sewer are among the top issues. To that end, Ramsey did argue that his proposal should not be subject to the proposed density bonuses. To that he’s referring to a $500 a bed contribution the project would provide to an affordable housing fund. “I don’t feel like our site is encroaching of the same density bonus that was dictated on one of the other developments in town,” he said. “One of the biggest reasons this site has never been developed before is because of the challenges of servicing the property. The millions that’s going to be required for us to do that gives us a little bit of cost questioning in respect to the
density bonusing.” Density bonuses had been applied to other developments such as the PTI Group workers lodge proposal for in the Strawberry Meadows. Brian Wakita with Wakita Construction spoke during the meeting as well, expressing concerns in specific areas, but overall supportive of the project itself. His concerns included impacts on drainage flows that would move downstream and impact his projects which are on the other side of the highway. He also urged council to work with the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure to consider the increase of traffic in that area, between more traffic from Terrace and the intersection at Kitamaat Village Road and Nalabila Boulevard. Creating a better, well planned entrance to the community would add value, he said. A new design he said would create a sense of ‘arrival’ for the community. Continued on page 9
PM477761
2014’s first baby and 2013’s last ... page 9