0
Shortest council meeting?
17 November 2009
[indent]Six thirty. That's when last night's council meeting ended. Shortest meeting I can recall this term - 90 minutes. Almost a breeze.
Ninety per cent of the meeting was simply a continuation of Thursday's six-hour planning/zoning bylaw marathon. That means the main topic under discussion - letters of consideration, comment and concern about provisions in the new zoning bylaw - took roughly seven hours in total to hear and discuss. There was really only that one topic of discussion on the agenda, last night - no public planning meeting, no delegations, no correspondence, no motions.
Each letter was presented individually in a bound document, complete with the planning department's comments and suggested resolution. Thursday we barely got through half the letters in the inch-thick document. Last night we did the remaining half in an hour.
Maybe we weren't collectively in as cantankerous - or as voluble - a mood as we seem to have been, Thursday. Whatever the reason, last night we raced through the letters and were out of the chamber in record time. Maybe the tough issues were at the front of the binder. Very little controversy over the content last night (Thursday was far more interesting from that perspective).
Perhaps the only serious contention came from those councillors opposite me who were reluctant to "set a precedent" (as Councillor McNabb said) by demanding developers install bicycle racks in their developments. They argued against requesting even a single bike rack - despite our council's previous acceptance of the active transportation principles, despite our approval of walkability principles, despite presentations about sustainability and our approval of the sustainable community plan, despite bike racks being main components of the new urban design standards bylaw (which has been presented in draft form previously), despite our push for more trails and bicycle lanes on streets.
The addition of a bicycle rack meant a small change to a previously-approved site plan. Sandberg commented that he hoped council would respect previous agreements and leave alone "what has been established." The media caught that and commented to me later about the irony of his statement. This council did just that with the Admiral Collingwood development: overturned a previous agreement and ended up with a pond on the main street (a motion made by the mayor).
It was a rare joy to have a Monday night at home with Susan instead of coming home at 10 or 11 p.m. After the meeting adjourned, there were no calls - as there would have been last term - for councillors and staff to meet at a local pub for some socializing and non-political conversation. We don't socialize well with one another this term.[/indent]
Ninety per cent of the meeting was simply a continuation of Thursday's six-hour planning/zoning bylaw marathon. That means the main topic under discussion - letters of consideration, comment and concern about provisions in the new zoning bylaw - took roughly seven hours in total to hear and discuss. There was really only that one topic of discussion on the agenda, last night - no public planning meeting, no delegations, no correspondence, no motions.
Each letter was presented individually in a bound document, complete with the planning department's comments and suggested resolution. Thursday we barely got through half the letters in the inch-thick document. Last night we did the remaining half in an hour.
Maybe we weren't collectively in as cantankerous - or as voluble - a mood as we seem to have been, Thursday. Whatever the reason, last night we raced through the letters and were out of the chamber in record time. Maybe the tough issues were at the front of the binder. Very little controversy over the content last night (Thursday was far more interesting from that perspective).
Perhaps the only serious contention came from those councillors opposite me who were reluctant to "set a precedent" (as Councillor McNabb said) by demanding developers install bicycle racks in their developments. They argued against requesting even a single bike rack - despite our council's previous acceptance of the active transportation principles, despite our approval of walkability principles, despite presentations about sustainability and our approval of the sustainable community plan, despite bike racks being main components of the new urban design standards bylaw (which has been presented in draft form previously), despite our push for more trails and bicycle lanes on streets.
The addition of a bicycle rack meant a small change to a previously-approved site plan. Sandberg commented that he hoped council would respect previous agreements and leave alone "what has been established." The media caught that and commented to me later about the irony of his statement. This council did just that with the Admiral Collingwood development: overturned a previous agreement and ended up with a pond on the main street (a motion made by the mayor).
It was a rare joy to have a Monday night at home with Susan instead of coming home at 10 or 11 p.m. After the meeting adjourned, there were no calls - as there would have been last term - for councillors and staff to meet at a local pub for some socializing and non-political conversation. We don't socialize well with one another this term.[/indent]
