Remarks for Public Hearing: Howard Mattfeld

Howard Mattfeld prepared these remarks for the Lakeshore Development Public Hearing.

A FLAWED PROCESS

By: Howard Mattfeld - a long-time resident of Lac Le Jeune

Introduction:

To date the process to rezone the subject property has not been conducted in a fair and honest manner by the TNRD.

Arguments:

1. This rezoning process began a considerable time ago. The Developer has kept the people of Lac Le Jeune informed as to the plans which they put forward to regulators, and to some of the changes which they have applied. The TNRD has invited some stakeholders to be a part of the process: Native Bands, The Provincial Water Comptroller. However, the Regional District has never communicated with the people affected by the zoning changes. The residents of Lac Le Jeune have never been asked for their input, their expertise, event their opinion.
2. There have been a number of changes to the property zoning from the start of this process. District Staff have engaged with the developer and appear to have done everything in their power to accommodate the Developer's wishes. Not once in this process have Staff asked for any input from the people living in the area. Not once has Staff contacted the locals regarding verification of information submitted by the Developer. There has been no communication to local residents by anyone at the TNRD during this process.
3. This process of non-communication has proceeded through the 1st Reading. The only stakeholders who were made aware of the 1st Reading were the TNRD and the Developer. It was only by chance that a search of the TNRD website showed a meeting was to be held. Nobody informed the residents of Lac Le Jeune. There was no invitation to the Conservation Association. There was no invitation to the Water Society. And of course, the 1st Reading was a formality. All discussions and fact finding had already been done. There was no verification of the developer's information, no scrutiny of the information submitted. If there had been, then the TNRD staff would have found a great deal of old information, unverified opinions, and incomplete data.
4. There was in interesting side note to the 1st Reading. A convenant which was tied to the subject property was included in the 1st Readings There was no noticed of this, no discussion, just added to the Reading. Do you not think that the residents should have been informed that a property which was not to be developed, by convenant, was about to be changed? Again, no communication by the TNRD to those who would be affected the most.
5. This process has been very enlightening for the Lac Le Jeune residents. There has always been the expectation that the TNRD Staff and the TNRD Representatives worked on behalf of everyone within their respective jurisdictions. This is in fact not the case. The lack of communication by the Area Representatives, and by the Staff shows that only some entities received TNRD support. Despite contact from the Lac Le Jeune Conservation Association and the Ridgemount Estates Water Users' Society asking to be kept informed, to be kept up to date, no communication came from TNRD.
6. This meeting is a good example of TNRD process.
   a) An invitation to attend this meeting was sent out to those who live within 100 metres of the development. What does 100 metres have to do with this? The entire community will be affected to some degree. The Notice of Public Hearing states "that all persons who believe that their interest in property may be affected by the proposed Bylaw shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity to be heard or to be present written submissions at the Public Hearing". And exactly how are these persons to do so when they have not been made aware of the Public Hearing? This is how the TNRD communicates with their electorate.
   
   b) The Notice of Public Hearing discusses the proposed zoning change. There is no mention of the proposal to remove the Convenant on the Subject Property. The Convenant may seem to be a minor part of the Reading, but to the residents at Lac Le Jeune it is a major achievement dating from a pervious property rezoning of the current Ridgemount Subdivision. Again, no communication by Staff or TNRD Representatives to this proposed major shift in property designation.
   
   c) Not only does this 2nd Reading include the Convenant change, it also included a combining of the 2nd and 3rd Readings. The TNRD appears to be intent on having this proposal passed with a minimum of work. This is another example of where the concerns and schedule of the developer have been addressed, but where due diligence has not. The TNRD is being perceived as less than honest in its dealings. The TNRD is operating through a rezoning process by Decree.
7. The Rezoning affects everything which will occur on the Subject Property. Therefore, it is amazing that water and sewer are not considerations for this Reading. The TNRD may not have the final say in the water allocation, however, it is something which must be discussed as to the preferential options and feasibility. Water is an item which may become a solely TNRD responsibility at a future date. The sewer is definitely within the TNRD mandate and is a vital part of any application for rezoning. How do you know that you are able to proceed on the Proposal if there is no facility for sewer, or if the impacts are unknown? Impacts sucha as catchment problems close to the Little Lake have not ever been examined. 

Summary:

1. The majority of the constituents you represent are not very happy with the way in which this rezoning application has been undertaken. This rezoning process has been flawed.
   - No verification of the developer's data
   - no input from other stakeholders
   - a condensed process to accommodate the developer's schedule
   - the TNRD looks as if it is not being honest with the lack of communication and transparency
2. Residents are not against this development. They want a say in the process and to be kept informed as to what occurs. It will affect their properties in many ways.
3. This 2nd Reading should be cancelled.
   - TNRD staff should request input from the other stakeholders so that their concerns can be addressed, and problems with the developer's submission be corrected.
   - TNRD Representatives can then receive an unbiased Board Report upon which to base their vote.