Dear Sirs and Madams:
I am the co-owner of the Golden Professional Building located in the downtown core.
I wish to offer some comments on the proposal and process as follows:
1. There should be a public hearing. A proposal which requires a rezoning and five variances cannot truly be said to be within the contemplation of the official community plan by a long stretch. All that is happening here is that the council sees a proposal it likes and is using semantics to avoid a public hearing because that is more convenient for the council.
2. The proposal is going in the wrong direction. Instead of encouraging open space, landscaping and adequate parking the proposal dramatically scales back all of these areas.
3. Halving the among of parking which would normally be required is very short-sighted and inequitable. Probably none of the councillors have read the last parking study done on the downtown core years ago, which even at that time identified a shortage of parking in the downtown core.
4. There is no assurance in the material that money in lieu of parking will be paid and where replacement parking will be located. It is not of any help to the parking situation in the downtown core to approve parking variances in the downtown core and then use any funds acquired to purchase parking on the other side of the river, as occurred in the past.
5. Allowing some developers to develop commercial space without parking is very inequitable to those of us who maintain parking for our tenants and accordingly pay property taxes on that portion of the land set aside to meet parking requirements. Essentially by waiving parking requirements for the commercial space which will occupy the new development council is providing an unfair rental advantage to that developer, who does not need to pay property taxes on land dedicated to parking. Is the council prepared to waive property taxes over that portion of the lands set aside for parking by the other downtown owners to maintain competitive fairness?
6. The proposal is being treated differently because a society is making the application, which includes social housing, and not a private developer. I don’t believe for a moment that if this proposal had come from a private developer the scope of variances proposed would be considered. A situation where there are different criteria for different classes of applicants is inequitable.
Yours truly,
Bruce Fairley
President, Zorpat Holdings Ltd.
Retired lawyer, former Town of Golden Councillor
