Skip to content

Petition on Second Street project presented to council

Over 1,000 signatures were gathered, but staff say council can’t do much about the project.
15482807_web1_stock-cityhall-web

The signatures of over 1,000 Boundary residents opposed to the proposed Second Street supportive housing development made their way to the City of Grand Forks Committee of the Whole meeting on Monday morning, along with a delegation of local residents explaining their opposition to the project.

The development was announced by crown corporation BC Housing last year, and almost instantly drew backlash from area residents and local businesses. The project has been reconfigured at least twice to address concerns, and is currently before council in the form of a parking variance requested by BC Housing, reducing the umber of parking spaces required for the development.

Local residents Russ Wark and Pamela Kennedy spoke to council on Monday morning, articulating concerns that included lack of resources in Grand Forks to handle the number of clients with complex health needs, as well as impressions to tourists of having the development in the downtown core, the impact on crime, drug use and local business, as well as the development’s location in a floodplain.

“We need to have the supports available to make [this facility] successful,” Wark said.“It is time to get this project tailor made to our community, not a box project made for larger communities.”

“We want them housed and we want them dealt with,” Wark added.

Initially, the development was billed as 50 supportive units that would house people with “barriers to housing” that included mental health and substance abuse issues. After backlash, BC Housing informed the former city council in an email that the scope of the project would be changed; it would still contain 50 units, but with a “secure lock-off” of 10-15 units for hard-to-house clients and the remaining units for seniors and people with disabilities.

However, when a parking variance was presented to council earlier this year, the proposal was for a 34-unit development, and language in the proposal indicated it would be entirely for clients with barriers to housing.

The differing information from BC Housing has caused concern for local residents and councillors, many of whom have demanded an explanation from BC Housing before the project moves forward. The parking variance is currently before council, and petitioners asked that council deny the parking variance.

However, as staff said at Monday’s meeting, there is relatively little the city, and council, can do to stop BC Housing development.

“It’s a development, if it was anyone but BC Housing…not much [the city can do] really. If it was a private developer you tried to stop you would end up in court. We are the children of the province and the province does not have to consult with us,” said Dolores Sheets, manager of development and engineering.

It was also revealed on Monday that council had attempted to work with BC Housing on finding an alternate location via a land swap. Multiple members of council said BC Housing was not interested in a swap.

According to Sheets, there is a provision in the city’s bylaws that allow developers to pay a penalty rather that provide parking spaces. That penalty is $1,000 per space not provided.

“The community can allow a developer to pay for parking, rather than provide parking. Eery single new development in the downtown core has had to give variances for parking in the last 20 years or so, it is not unusual … it is the choice of the developer to do that,” Sheets said.

The petition presented to council on Monday had 1,025 valid signatures, as determined by city staff; a valid signature was one that was accompanied by a residential address (redacted from the version of the petition presented in the meeting agenda).

City communications officer Kevin McKinnon said staff erred on the side of including more addresses rather than fewer; there were two that could not be verified but others were included.

The petition was signed by majority City of Grand Forks residents (647) and RDKB Area D residents (330), but signatures from Greenwood, Christina Lake and the West Boundary were also accepted. One signature came from Nelson, and two from Curlew, WA.