On the Street Where You Live...

Doubt that songster Vic Damone, or Willie Nelson, had Coldstream in mind when they crooned: 

"I have often walked down this street before;
But the pavement always stayed beneath my feet before"

Well, residents' feet were off the pavement at Monday night's council meeting.  And again on reading Jennifer Smith's recap in the Morning Star today.  But not from love.

The entire tone of the meeting--residents' continuing outrage--was ignored by the Morning Star.

But that's all right.  We can always count on Councillor Gyula Kiss to appear frustrated with any dissent.  He didn't disappoint, finally blurting out:  "Council looked at the old bylaw because it was wrong and we now have problems with drainage.  We're not looking for confrontation."

Three things:  the old bylaw being wrong, NOW having drainage problems, and Council not looking for confrontation.  

• The old bylaw wasn't wrong.  If you were not subdividing your land, you paid no off-site service costs because there was no directly attributable impact on infrastructure.  A kitchen renovation didn't put "extra poop in the pipe" to put it bluntly.  That old bylaw didn't call residents developers and charge them for an unlimited scope of off-site works (which the first and second drafts of the re-write sought to charge, depositing residents' money into this council's empty coffers.)

• NOW having drainage problems, to use Councillor Kiss' emphasis, are we Coldstream residents oblivious to a mountain-building event and the entire community used to be flat during the old bylaw?  Drainage and its effects have been around since the glaciers retreated.  Drainage is why we have drinking water year round.  Water runs downhill, and will for some time, at least until December 21st of this year, according to the Mayans.

• And not wanting controversy?  Huh?  What did the insightful minds of this mayor, council (and reporter Jennifer Smith) actually think would occur with the District's headlong plunge into our wallets...that residents would champion discrimination?  That we'd sit quietly by and allow the imposition of an onerous new tax whose face value wouldn't be known until residents actually submitted a building permit for a renovation? 

Funny how words and phrases pop into--and out of--draft versions.  A new word has popped up in the proposed bylaw (in addition to renumbering the bylaw, perhaps to bury the evidence of this monumental year-long fiasco). 

The new word is SAFETY.  Maybe--like the mountain-building example--people behaved more safely under the old bylaw and didn't require protection by local government. So the new bylaw's inclusion of safety will then allow residents to act with complete disregard--indeed reckless abandon--to their, and their family's, safety because the District's bylaw will protect them.

Doubt that includes a bylaw officer escorting a resident home after a twilight stroll--flashlight in hand--to ensure he's safe.  More likely, safety added to this bylaw will include, for example, roads identified as being too narrow, or too steep, or too broken, or too littered by leavres from a tree on your property...on and on, and where it stops no-one knows.

In the meantime, specific roads have been named as "drainage concerns", with the bylaw's activation triggered by a $50,000 renovation permit, maximum per residence contribution of $2,500 for drainage:

1. Buchanan Road (entire length).  Remedy:  ditch realignmemnt/culverting.
2. Cottomwood Lane (entire length).  Infiltration chambers.
3. Fairmont Place (entire length).  Ditching north side/infiltration chamber.
4. Howe Drive, north of Kal Lake Road.  Ditching/infiltration chambers.
5. Kalavista Drive (entire length).  Infiltration chambers.
6. Ponderosa Way (entire length).  Ditching/infiltration chambers.
7. Rendell Drive (entire length).  Infiltration chambers.
8. Rockland Drive (entire length).  Ditching north side/catch basin at curb/infiltration chambers.
9. Scenic Drive (entire length).  Catch basins/infiltration chambers on north side.
10. Springfield Road (9900 block).  Infiltration chambers.
11. Tebo Drive (entire length).  Infiltration chambers.
12. Torrent Drive (entire length).  Infiltration chambers.
13. Upland Drive (entire length).  Culverting/storm sewer.
14. Westkal Road (entire length).  Infiltration chambers/drainage easements.
15. Kidston Road (entire length).  Ditching/culverting.

Before you sit back and utter "whew" at not seeing your road listed, remember that the District of Coldstream--even under this revised bylaw-- still does not have the authority to demand off-site works and services unless the permit requests the subdivision of land and that the permit is for a complex building or variance that places new demands on existing infrastructure.  So this newly revised bylaw is still not allowed.

But to get a feel for the outrage of residents at Monday's meeting (since the newspaper omitted that), check out these questions posed by residents, and the answers (if they can be called that) received that night.

Question: The Mayor was asked if the residents on these roads had been notified of the change in permitting fees.
Response:     No, the residents were not informed.

Question:      Does Council feel that they should have contacted the impacted residents?
Response:      They probably should have been informed but they were not.

Question:      Do these property owners have any input on this new “tax” on their land?
Response:     No, the property owners had no input on the new fee/bylaw.

Question:     Does Council need the homeowners’ consent to pass this bylaw? 
Response:     No, Council does not need the homeowners’ consent.

Question:      Can Council add to this list of 15 identified roads without any other consent or input?
Response:    Yes, Council can.

Question:    Council will levy a $2,500.00 fee for single and dual family home standard building permits (no variances, subdivision, etc.) over $50,000.00 in value, but can Council charge more?
Response:    Yes, Council can.

Question:    When can Council change this value?
Response:    Council can change it at any time and they do not need consent or input from homeowners.

Question:    As homeowners, we purchased our property, we pay taxes, and we have rights on our land. If Council can do this, we might as well rent the land. Is this correct?
Response:    Council did not respond to this question.

Final Comment:  The new Subdivision bylaw gives the Approving Officer the ability to determine what drainage works are “directly attributable” to a standard building permit. The wording is vague and unclear and you are telling us that any permit on these streets over $50,000.00 becomes “directly attributable” to paying the $2,500.00 fee no matter what type of permit it is. A kitchen renovation is seen to be directly attributable to drainage problems on the road, and that homeowners have no say. Municipal government is supposed to be open, honest, and transparent.  We are not seeing that tonight.
Response:    Are there any other members of the public that wish to speak?



So with that, Mayor Garlick and Council--and even the Morning Star newspaper--buried the old bylaw.
The new one received First, Second and Third Reading.
They expect it to be finally passed (their phrase) at the March 26th, 2012 council meeting..

Oh, and the bylaw's now called:   Subdivision, Development and Servicing Bylaw No. 1535, 2008, Amendment Bylaw No. 1608, 2012, Amendment No. 2.

But residents have their own name for the bylaw.  
And tune.

"For there's no where else on earth that I would rather be," intones Kia, adding "he's not singing about Coldstream, that is clear to me."