It looks like the public may have their say at a public hearing after all about Target Marine Hatcheries' application to harvest caviar, but not before staff looks into providing mediation for Target and those opposed to their application.
Council voted 4-3 at their Feb. 2 meeting to bring the Target Marine application back to the Feb. 16 council meeting for possible first reading and to set a date for a public hearing, but stipulated they want staff to pursue mediation between Target and the residents opposed to the application, with those mediation efforts outlined in a staff report to come to the Feb. 16 meeting.
"I think there's a possibility of meeting some of Target's more modest needs and some of the neighbours' modest needs if there would be some mediation, perhaps facilitated by our staff, between these two parties before we get into another down and out, calling each other names, public hearing that does the community no good," said Coun. Fred Taylor.
Taylor made mention of a successful mediation the District recently took part in between various user groups of Kinnikinnick Park and suggested the same could happen with Target.
"I think it would be negligent as a council if we did not at least try that first," he said.
He then made a motion that council request staff to offer mediation efforts between the concerned neighbours and Target Marine on the issue.
"Well, I'm totally opposed to that. I don't think it's our job to mediate our community. Sometimes you can't mediate between people. That's why people get divorced," said Coun. Ann Kershaw to loud applause from the audience.
Coun. Keith Thirkell countered that he didn't want to see the community divided further by this issue and felt mediation would go a long way to addressing the residents' concerns with the application.
"I would like to see those concerned sitting down and addressing all of those concerns. There has to be compromise room in all of this," Thirkell said.
Kershaw and Coun. Alice Lutes were opposed to council-mandated mediation, but the vote passed with Mayor Darren Inkster, Coun. Warren Allan, Coun. Alice Janisch, Taylor and Thirkell in favour of the move.
But following the vote on that motion, Inkster cautioned council not to expect mediation to be complete before the next council meeting.
"I hope council's expectation is not that in two weeks we come back with a signed agreement between these two parties that they will agree to this additional use. There may not be an easy agreement," Inkster noted.
More than 150 people came out to hear what council would do with the Target Marine application on Wednesday night. The meeting was so packed, the District had to move it to the Seaside Centre to accommodate the interest.
At the beginning of the meeting, Sechelt resident Maureen Clayton spoke on behalf of the business community imploring council to bring back to the table the Target application and send it to public hearing.
"There is a reputation that the District of Sechelt delays the process for approvals and that is, in itself, having its own negative effect," said Clayton. "Another example of this is Target Marine's application for rezoning. We implore you to move ahead with first reading of the bylaw and referral to a public hearing of the Target Marine application for the zoning of a sturgeon processing plant. Council's delay of this application for an established business with an outstanding record as a corporate citizen is inconceivable.
"In business, deadlines are imperative. Businesses do not have the luxury of delay as council may enjoy. Timeliness is very important. Your responsibility to the residents is to the whole community - the big picture - and we caution you not to be swayed by a small interest group or be delayed by waiting for a long away official community plan when Target Marine is simply requesting permission to present all of the information to you and the public, which will be required to support this critical bylaw change. What is the problem with allowing immediate action on their request and to take this to the public?"
When the item came up in the committee minutes, Kershaw introduced the original motion (which was defeated at the Jan. 26 committee of the whole meeting) to refer the application to the next council meeting for consideration of first reading and public hearing. Lutes seconded the motion.
"I think that I have come to the conclusion to stall or delay bringing this to the public to have a fair hearing is unfair to both the public and the applicant, so that's why I will vote in favour of this," Lutes said.
When the vote was called, Kershaw, Thirkell, Inkster and Lutes were in favour of considering the application at the Feb. 16 council meeting, while Allan, Janisch and Taylor were against the motion.
