Councillors here had to take a hard stand on Nov. 15 by refusing to hear a delegation that appeared without providing council background to a presentation.
Anthea Larke came to council to ask it to reduce her site alteration deposit from the required $20,000 to $3,000.
But before her presentation began, councillor John Brennan said council has a policy to refuse to hear delegations that do not provide a written explanation of what they were about to say so council can review it prior to a presentation.
The only documentation at council was a request to be a delegation.
Brennan said, “I see nothing in the package as to what Larke is going to say. There is no background or anything like that.”
Brennan said council had decided to refuse delegations without that information to prevent council from being “presented with something at the 11th hour.”
Clerk Kathryn Ironmonger agreed with Brennan’s assessment. Her understanding was the delegation had not intended to bring documents and only planned to speak to the issue.
She said the planner was willing to provide a sketch of the area being considered, but other than that, Ironmonger was unaware of any additional information other than a verbal request to council.
Brennan said, “Although there may be a verbal request, there’s nothing to explain what this is about.”
He said a decision is up to council, but he wanted to note that council had the discussion [about that type of situation] “and it was to specifically avoid people coming up and springing something on us at the last minute, then having to react rather than having time to consider it.”
He moved council refuse to hear the delegation until written information is provided.
His motion carried, but the discussion did not end there.
Mayor Lou Maieron asked Larke “to be so kind as to provide some background for the next council meeting. I don’t want to be rude or inconsiderate of you, but as councillor Brennan has stated, all that we have here is a request to reduce the site alteration deposit … with no backup information.”
He said it would put council in a difficult position to listen to and possibly resolve those concerns without information.
Maieron suggested Larke speak to the clerk later to book time to be a delegation once the information is ready.
Larke said the issue is a time sensitive situation because of the weather.
“I’m in a bit of a bind weather-wise as far as getting this job done before the weather gets to a point where I cannot do it this year.”
Maieron empathized, but said, “Unfortunately, you’ve been the test case on this policy.”
Brennan said, “It’s nothing personal about you or your application. I have no information to say if it is good or it is not. But we did pass the policy to avoid this type of situation.”
Larke said “As a resident of Erin, I had no idea I had to do that, so I could not have complied, because I was not informed that I was supposed to do that. So here I am trying to present my case with not the right information given to me.”
Maieron asked if the policy is written and on the town website so people know what they need to do.
While it may be embarrassing for council not to receive a delegation, he said council has things thrust upon them – which is why the policy is there.
In its section regarding requests to be delegation at council, the town website, www.erin.ca, states, “A request to be a delegation form must be completed and submitted along with supporting documentation.”
Written on the application form itself is the notation “please provide materials for council with request.”
Planner Sally Stull said she is uncertain that Larke could actually provide much in the way of materials or information. She said the deposit reduction being requested was calculated by a consultant; any other consideration is done by council.
Stull said if a report is to be prepared, it would be more likely from her department rather than from the applicant She believes the site alteration application did meet all criteria, with the exception of the deposit.
“The only discussion here is the appropriateness of the deposit,” she said.
Councillor Josie Wintersinger wondered if council’s approach might be reconsidered, based on Stull’s statements.
Ironmonger said any reconsideration of an earlier decision to refuse the delegation would need to either be held at another meeting, or council would need to waive its procedural bylaw to allow reconsideration of allowing the delegation.
Wintersinger’s motion to that effect was defeated.
Brennan asked Stull to consider assisting Larke if she believes that is needed.
Councillor Barb Tocher believes the applicant is able to provide council with background information. “The applicant obviously made the application for the site alteration in the first place.”
Tocher cited the listing of information such as address, scope of the project, why it is being done, and why the reduction was being requested.
“I do believe the applicant could have presented some information to council. I don’t think the onus is on the planner – other than knowing the delegation would take place.”
Maieron suggested Larke take Tocher’s advice and forward that information prior to its next meeting.
He anticipates Stull would be available to help if there are issues.
Council agreed to hear the delegation at an upcoming meeting.
