Metro Vancouver鈥檚 board of directors has voted against an amendment bylaw that would have facilitated a 145-home subdivision in the Hazelmere Valley.
Friday鈥檚 decision followed a nearly two-hour discussion that morning that included a suggestion by Surrey Coun. Mike Starchuk to refer the application back to Surrey due to new information received after last week鈥檚 public hearing, a call for legal advice, nearly 30 minutes of behind-closed-door talks and the defeat of a motion to take the matter to a new public hearing.
While proponents of the South Surrey subdivision of single-family homes were not immediately available to comment on the final vote, it brought those who had been opposed to the plan some relief.
Sarah Rush, representing , said shortly after the vote that she was 鈥減leasantly surprised鈥� by the outcome. The group鈥檚 concerns with the application had included its impact to crop diversity, traffic volumes and loss of farmland. As well, that it didn鈥檛 comply with any of the goals of Metro Vancouver鈥檚 regional growth strategy.
鈥淲e鈥檙e happy because at the end of the day, taxpayers pay Metro Vancouver to come up with a greater plan that serves the common good,鈥� Rush said. 鈥淎nything that鈥檚 contrary to that should be turned down.
鈥淲e鈥檙e just really glad that the directors did their job and made the right decision.鈥�
The City of Surrey 鈥� despite city staff advising against 鈥� had asked for the bylaw amendment change in order to move a development, proposed by Lapierre Holdings and Hazelmere Golf Course for the 18100- to 18300-block of 0 Avenue, forward.
It had received third reading from Surrey council last September, prompting the city to request an amendment to Metro鈥檚 regional growth strategy that would redesignate the 23.7-hectare site to general urban from rural and extend the urban containment boundary to encompass the new general-urban area.
The amendment bylaw needed support of two-thirds of Metro directors to pass. An exact count of Friday鈥檚 vote was not immediately available.
Anyone who attended the meeting, or watched the streaming video, heard shock and frustration at learning Starchuk had received new information. Directors and the public had been reminded at the end of the public hearing that no new information could be received after that had closed.
Comments prior to the vote included describing the receipt as 鈥渋mproper.鈥�
Vice-chair Raymond Louie (Vancouver) called the process of referral out-of-order, and challenged chair Greg Moore (Port Coquitlam) after he ruled to the contrary 鈥� a challenge that was ultimately defeated.
Director Maria Harris (Electoral Area A) asked what consequences were in place for board members who don鈥檛 adhere to the public-hearing rule of no new information. Learning there are none, Harris questioned what disincentive there is to prevent other directors from doing the same on future matters.
鈥淚 just find this a hugely risky rabbit hole to go down,鈥� she said.
Harris suggested the board make a practice of dealing with matters immediately after public hearings, 鈥渟o we don鈥檛 run into the issue. So the debate and the vote takes place鈥� as a part of the public hearing.鈥�
Moore acknowledged that having delayed a decision on the matter instead of making one immediately after the public hearing, may not have been the best decision.
鈥淲e will take this back and change our processes in the future, I suspect,鈥� Moore told the board.
The board went into a closed-door meeting after director Richard Stewart (Vancouver) asked for Metro to receive legal advice on their options.
The request followed suggestions that included quashing the bylaw altogether as it had been 鈥渢ainted.鈥�
鈥淪everal people have suggested legal realities and I鈥檓 uncomfortable going forward,鈥� Stewart said.
The board had initially been expected to vote on two recommendations: to give third reading to the requested amendment bylaw, and to pass and adopt it.
The development, if approved, would have included a return of 10.7 acres of golf-course land to the ALR; three acres of park; and protection of 7.8 acres of natural area.
Proponents had described the project as key to Hazelmere golf course鈥檚 continued viability; a 鈥渟trategic move鈥� to counter a declining trend in the golf industry.
Friday, in speaking against third reading, Harris noted the board doesn鈥檛 鈥渉ave any onus or obligation to make a decision on the basis it will make a golf course viable.鈥�
Moore, in supporting third reading, said he hadn鈥檛 heard any opposing arguments applied beyond the immediate area.
In terms of the urban containment boundary (UCB), he said the 鈥渟mall site isn鈥檛 going to change鈥� on a regional context the 鈥減retty 91原创enal job鈥� the board has done so far at maintaining the UCB.
Supporters had said the development would create jobs, and that it was 鈥渦nprecedented鈥� with regard to efforts to involve the Semiahmoo First Nation 鈥� vocal in its support 鈥� in the process.
Metro staff had the application, stating in a report that there was 鈥渘o substantial rationale or demonstrated need鈥� to expand urban development into the Hazelmere Valley.
