The village of Anmore has applied to the B.C. Supreme Court for “relief” to allow the mayor and two councillors to vote on a possible change to its infill development policy.
Mayor John McEwen and councillors Tim Laidler Sr. and Polly Krier have recused themselves from the council discussion around a proposed amendment to the controversial policy, citing conflict of interest as they own eligible development properties in the village.
The policy was adopted last year, before Laidler and Krier were acclaimed to their village roles; McEwen, who was re-elected last October, has previously declared a conflict of interest and recused himself when the topic is raised at council meetings.
Juli Halliwell, Anmore’s chief administrative officer, told The Tri-City News that with three council members missing from the table, the village doesn’t have a quorum — meaning the proposed policy amendment can’t proceed to discussion (Anmore council is also comprised of councillors Kim Trowbridge and Paul Weverink).
But a successful petition to the Vancouver registry of the B.C. Supreme Court would permit them to have a say despite the conflict of interest rules in the Community Charter, a provincial legislation governing the way municipalities operate.
Under sections 100 and 101 of the Charter, elected officials are required to disclose any direct or indirect pecuniary interests but it’s up to individual council members to determine if they should leave the room when the matter is raised, Halliwell said.
The request for a policy change came in January when Fiona Cherry of the Anmore Infill Support Group called on council to lower the Community Amenity Contribution (CAC) fee of $150,000 for every new lot created through infill (CACs received by the village will fund such projects as a new municipal/community hall, trails and riparian areas).
Halliwell said that amount — set by consultants G.P. Rollo and Associates — was based on the market when real estate values were higher; however, she said, the $150,000 target was considered at the time “on the lower end” of the increased values.
Halliwell stressed the infill development policy is only being re-examined by the village council to look at another CAC amount.
“There are residents in our community who are blowing this up into something that it’s not,” she said Tuesday. “This is not a re-consideration of the entire policy that was passed last year. This is a procedural thing. It’s just a consideration of a potential change to a portion of the policy.”
Halliwell said if the court petition is unchallenged, the village will send an affidavit requesting the judge grant a relief order; however, if it is challenged before the end of May, a court hearing date will be set.
