To the delight of some and dismay of others, by a vote of 4-3, Sechelt council gave first reading to bylaws that would allow Sechelt's Target Marine Hatcheries to process sturgeon and caviar at its Porpoise Bay site and referred those bylaws to public hearing.
The discussion and vote on the matter drew another overflow crowd, both in favour and against the application, to Sechelt council chambers March 2.
Throughout Wednesday's meeting and after the meeting, some heated exchanges and the occasional outburst were made by some in the gallery, a clear indication of the passion being shown by the community on this issue.
Councillors Keith Thirkell, Ann Kershaw, Alice Lutes and Mayor Darren Inkster voted in favour, with councillors Alice Janisch, Warren Allan and Fred Taylor opposed.
Janisch said she was voting against the application because she had several concerns including the possible negative effects on other sectors of Sechelt's economy - namely tourism and residential construction.
She also accused Target of improper environmental practices and polluting Sechelt Inlet, facts that were steadfastly denied by the company.
"I have some serious reservations about spot rezoning industrial in a residential area, and I have some reservations about some other things," Janisch said.
"The new official community plan [OCP] designates the land just north of the location as resort potential. Now if a fish processing plant goes there, how many people would want to buy a piece of property for resort potential? I'm really worried what that affect will have on tourism.
"Our largest industry is residential construction. This proposal would provide three to five low paying jobs and, in my opinion, would negatively affect the residential construction industry."
Taylor, who joined the meeting by phone, said he would be voting against the application because the new OCP was not finalized yet.
"In a broader context, the issue really is what is the net benefit for our community," Taylor said. "There is some question whether the net benefit is enough. I will vote against this because I believe that we have an OCP and a process nearing finalization, and we should finalize that before we rush to proceed with this."
Thirkell, who has been widely considered a swing vote on the issue after stating in previous recent discussions that he would support first reading only if certain conditions were in place, passed several other motions that added restrictions to the bylaw.
Thirkell suggested that proposed language in the bylaw be tightened up to say "sturgeon roe" instead of just "roe" be allowed and restrictions added that include no smoking of fish at the site, no composting of fish waste on site and a covenant limiting the tonnage of fish processed at the site to 400 metric tonnes.
"In terms of enforceability, I think it's a good move to restrict the tonnage," said Thirkell. "To me it gives some certainty to the cap that they cannot process any other fish than sturgeon and there is a small footprint of land that they can do this on."
The issue of how the District would enforce the covenant drew debate.
"It's the sort of thing that we would enforce on a complaint type basis and no doubt the neighbours, if they felt there was a gross over-tonnage being produced, would be quick to let us know," said director of planning Ray Parfitt. "In fairness, directed by council, we could conduct periodic inspections."
Parfitt's comments drew a few catcalls from the audience, to which Inkster had to ask the audience to tone down.
"Council is well aware of many of the community's concerns and we are discussing those concerns up at this table," said Inkster. "The fact that we are putting a limit on it is a clear indication of our concerns over the amount."
Lynne Forrest, who has spoken out against the application and voiced numerous concerns of area neighbours at previous council meetings, did not approve council's decision.
"I was disappointed that council did not turn the application down, but I did expect the issue go to public hearing," Forrest said in an interview with Coast Reporter Thursday morning. "At the public hearing, that will give everyone a chance to voice their concerns. Information will come out that council can use to make their decision."
Forrest said one of her major concerns is the spot rezoning of industrial in a residential neighbourhood.
"For me that is a big issue, and I certainly will be bringing that up during the hearing," she said.
Forrest said she felt that environmental aspects have also not been addressed.
Other neighbours have expressed concerns about low property values if the operation is allowed to take place, while others have suggested that Target should move their new operation elsewhere in the District where the proper zoning for that operation is already in place.
Target Marine general manager Justin Henry said he was pleased with the direction council took.
"I'm happy that the public will finally have a chance to get their input to council at a public hearing," Henry said. "I was surprised that the vote was so close. I don't think some on council realize how much support there is for our application. However, with the hearing, I think they will get to see that support and see that certain misconceptions are, in fact, false and be able to support it at the next vote."
Parfitt confirmed Thursday morning that the public hearing would be held on March 22. Further details will be available in the coming weeks through District notices.
After the hearing, council will review all comments made during the hearing and then decide whether they could support further readings of the bylaws.
