CAVEAT : FORWARD THINKING STATEMENT : CAVEAT
NOV 22ND SINCE TIME BEGAN : salus populi suprema est lex - the right of the people is the supreme law : IN TRUTH WE TRUST 2020 A.D.E.
BEST LOCATION REFERENCE : SEC 10 / RNG 4 / DISTRICT SAHTLEM : HRH STITUMAATULWUT HWUNEEM, LLB
UNDERSTANDING LEGAL LAND LOCATIONS IN BRITISH COLUMBIA : DOMINON LAND SURVEY
PALDI : BC DATA SERVICE : BC GEOGRAPHIC NAME LOCATION : CVRD
PALDI TOWNSHIP VIA CVRD LOCATOR : ASSESSMENT ROLL OF LOTS IN PALDI : ZONING BYLAW
| Latitude-Longitude: | 48°47'00''N, 123°51'00''W at the approximate population centre of this feature. |
MAP : N.48.79100 W.123.85300 : PALDI MAP : SATELLITE : STREET MAP - MAPPING
PALDI HISTORY : COURT ORDERED SALE OF PALDI SIKH TEMPLE : COURT DECISION AT PALDI SIKH TEMPLE
PALDI DESIGNATED AS WORLD HERITAGE SITE - 2016
- WALLY OPAL VIDEO
- UNESCO DESIGNATION AS WORLD HERITAGE SITE
- CANADA DESIGNATION GUIDE - PALDI
UNESCO WORLD HERITAGE LIST : Canada
- L’Anse aux Meadows National Historic Site
- Nahanni National Park #
- Dinosaur Provincial Park
- Kluane / Wrangell-St. Elias / Glacier Bay / Tatshenshini-Alsek # * 6
- Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump
- SGang Gwaay
- Wood Buffalo National Park
- Canadian Rocky Mountain Parks # 7
- Historic District of Old Québec
- Gros Morne National Park
- Old Town Lunenburg
- Waterton Glacier International Peace Park *
- Miguasha National Park
- Rideau Canal
- Joggins Fossil Cliffs
- Landscape of Grand Pré
- Red Bay Basque Whaling Station
- Mistaken Point
- Pimachiowin Aki
- Writing-on-Stone / Áísínai’pi
- PALDI IS NOT LISTED @ UNESCO AS WORLD HERITAGE SITE : UNESCO LIST MAP (2020)
- HERITAGE BC SITES : PROVINCIAL HERITAGE LIST : BC HISTORIC PLACES : PALDI IS NOT LISTED (LINK)
$1,500,000
Here is an opportunity to be part of a large mixed use development on South Central Vancouver Island. This property, of approximately 95 acres, is made up of 5 titles which include the original Paldi Town site located mid way between Duncan and Cowichan Lake. The holdings include the Southern and North Western portions of a Comprehensive Development Plan known as "Paldi Estates", approximately 300 acres in total. The Plan includes about 500 residential units in various densities and a commercial corridor. The Cowichan Region is home to some of Western Canada's best out door recreation and boasts the warmest average year round temperatures in Canada. The sale of this property is subject to approval of the Court of British Columbia and a Schedule "A" must accompany all offers to purchase (available upon request from LS). (id:20127)
The Municipality of North
Cowichan’s council will meet today (Nov. 10) to discuss the Supreme Court of
British Columbia’s ruling that it failed to provide justification for the
controversial decision to deny the Vancouver Island Motorsport Circuit its development
plans.
Mayor Al Siebring said
it’s up to council whether it will appeal the decision, issued by Justice Diane
MacDonald on Nov. 6, or to go back and redo the process for VIMC’s application.
“The court’s decision
was based on a ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada that was made before our
judicial review was held in September,” Siebring said.
“That ruling stated
that if a public institution is going to change a policy, they must explain
why. Basically, we were entitled to make the decision we made, but we had to
give the reasons for it. We were not aware of that at the time.”
MOTORSPORT CIRCUIT GOES TO JUDICIAL REVIEW OVER NORTH
COWICHAN DEVELOPMENT PERMIT DENIAL
In her ruling,
MacDonald said that for six years, North Cowichan supported the VIMC’s
development and was satisfied that its uses complied with the zoning bylaw.
“In these circumstances,
it was arbitrary for the council to diametrically disagree with a past
interpretation of the zoning bylaw without explaining the basis for the
disagreement,” she said.
“There was a reason,
the uses were not compliant with the zoning bylaw, but no explanation. Not
providing a justification in and of itself renders the decision unreasonable.
It was incumbent on the municipality to justify the decision. Unfortunately,
neither the council nor the underlying record explain to the (VIMC) the basis
for the municipality’s complete reversal of its earlier decision. This lack of
justification undermines public confidence in the rule of law and renders the
decision unreasonable.”
MacDonald said
council’s decision to deny the application for a development permit is quashed,
and the matter is remitted back to council.
“The council is to
assess the application on its technical merits and reconsider it in light of
these reasons,” she said.
North Cowichan’s
director of planning Rob Conway sent a letter to the VIMC denying them a
development permit for its $36-million expansion plans after a contentious,
marathon public hearing that took two days to complete in October, 2019.
Council decided to not
allow rezoning for the expansion — which would have included a new five-kilometre
paved motor vehicle circuit, an off-road motor vehicle circuit, a new clubhouse
and buildings for maintaining, repairing and storing motor vehicles — after
that public hearing.
RELATED
STORY: $50M LIABILITY WORRY HAS NORTH COWICHAN MAYOR ASKING FOR
MOTORSPORT DO-OVER
Council again denied
the application after a second public hearing on the expansion plans was held
in December, 2019.
Based on council’s
decision on the application after October’s public hearing, Conway said in his
letter to the VIMC that he was “obliged” to deny the application for a
development permit for the project.
“I appreciate that it
is [your] position that the development proposed…is for the same land use as
under the development permit issued by North Cowichan for phase one of the VIMC
and, as such, there has been a past determination that the land use in
compliance with (zoning),” Conway said in the letter.
“However, upon careful
review, I have concluded that the proposed land use is not permitted [under
zoning].”
But in her ruling,
MacDonald said property owners have an expectation of consistency when they
rely on established and longstanding representations and decisions by a
municipality.
“When consistency is
denied in these circumstances, property owners have a right to know why,” she
wrote.
“That is particularly
so where, as here, the prior decision and practices involved the very same
parties, uses, zones, and zoning bylaw.”
robert.barron@cowichanvalleycitizen.com
