Letter to the editor
This letter is addressed to Honourable Ravi Kahlon, Minister of Housing and Municipal Affairs, regarding the bylaw amendment process for the Heritage Heights development proposal in Windermere.
We are writing to ask the Ministry of Housing and Municipal Affairs to investigate the actions of the RDEK on the above application.
The concerns are listed below:
• The public notice for Bylaws No. 3353 and No. 3354 was placed in the Columbia Valley Pioneer on Thursday, January 23. It stated all written comments from the public must be submitted by Monday, January 27. However, a few lines below, it stated submissions cannot be accepted after the public hearing. The notice presented confusing submission deadlines.
Due to a lack of clarity with the deadlines, letters submitted after Monday, January 27, but before the public hearing started were all rejected.
• The notice provided only three business days for the public to make submissions and register for the public hearing, which was held only two days later on Wednesday, January 29.
While this timeline meets legal requirements, we question why the RDEK set such an inappropriately short timeline for public input for such a significant development that raises many concerns.
The landowner held an open house on December 16, 2024, where residents raised issues, including the capacity for water and sewage disposal to accommodate a density over twice that of the existing zoning, significant traffic that will exacerbate the current difficult access from Windermere to Highway 93/95, the impact on the already overcrowded Windermere beach (operated by the RDEK) and other issues. The landowner’s planning consultant dismissed these concerns with “these will be addressed later.”
• Public hearings may be conducted in person or via Zoom. In-person public hearings require only registration upon entry to the meeting room.
Once admitted, participants can easily speak if they choose. While the decision to hold the public hearing via Zoom was logical, given the time of year, it did reduce the ability of the public to participate. This is because the RDEK requires all persons wishing to attend to register at least two days before a public hearing. In this case, the public hearing was just over a day and a half after the submission deadline. This was only three business days after the notice of both events.
We do not understand why the RDEK implements such a stringent requirement to attend public hearings via Zoom. With today’s technology, it would be simple for planning staff and/or a director in attendance to admit members of the public at the start of the meeting. There could be a cut-off time for admittance. This would eliminate the need for a two-day advance registration as the number of participants can be counted upon entry. The ability of the moderator to mute participants addresses any behaviour concerns.
• After the landowner’s open house, the area director representing Windermere (F) and the Mayor of Invermere, also on the RDEK board of directors, expressed their support for the application. This was prior to the public hearing and listening to the concerns of local residents. It should be noted that the Advisory Planning Committee recommended the refusal of the application.
• Members of the public would like the ability to attend RDEK Planning & Development Services (PDSC) and board meetings when first and second readings are considered for bylaw amendments or other planning issues. Currently, this is nearly impossible. If a member of the public wishes to make a delegation to either meeting, they must make a request to the corporate officer by noon on Wednesday before the meetings take place. Ironically, the agendas for those meetings are not posted until the Friday. How are we supposed to speak at these meetings?
Based on the above, you can see how frustrated we are given the barriers the RDEK has created not only on this application, but on other planning issues.
Would the minister please direct his staff to investigate the actions of the RDEK on the matters listed above?
The application for Bylaws No. 3353 and No. 3354 were discussed at the PDSC meeting on Thursday, Feb. 13, and on February 14.
We anticipate the bylaw amendment’s third reading being approved, but we ask that our concerns with this application be addressed as soon as possible.
Brian and Sandy Smith, Windermere