9 Jun 2025 Council meeting Environment

Alternative Approval Process to Remove Park Dedication From a Portion of "Elaine Hamilton Park" for Road Dedication Purposes - Sandstone Development (Part 1)

Motion
That Council: 1. Direct the Corporate Officer, or their designate, to undertake an Alternative Approval Process to remove park dedication from a portion of “Elaine Hamilton Park” for road dedication purposes. 2. Determine the total number of electors of the area to which the approval process applies (the whole of the City of Nanaimo) to be 76,724, of which 7,672 represents 10 percent. 3. Establish a deadline of 4:30 p.m. on Monday, 2025- JUL-21 for receiving elector responses for the Alternative Approval Process in relation to “Parks Dedication Amendment Bylaw 2025 No. 2255.01” (a bylaw to remove dedication as public park from a portion of “Elaine Hamilton Park” for road dedication purposes). 4. Approve the Elector Response Form as outlined in Attachment A of the Staff Report titled “Alternative Approval Process to Remove Park Dedication from a Portion of ‘Elaine Hamilton Park’ for Road Dedication Purposes - Sandstone Development”, dated 2025-JUN-09. 5. Endorse the AAP Communication and Engagement Strategy as outlined in Attachment C of the Staff Report titled “Alternative Approval Process to Remove Park Dedication from a Portion of ‘Elaine Hamilton Park’ for Road Dedication Purposes – Sandstone Developme nt”, dated 2025-JUN-09.
Minutes, page 9
Reconsiders an earlier vote
Sources
Agenda itemCity agenda
Staff reportPage 1
Purpose
To seek Council approval to proceed with an Alternative Approval Process (AAP) to remove park dedication from a portion of “Elaine Hamilton Park” (formerly known as Trofton Park) at 1631 Naylor Cres. for road dedication purposes to facilitate the Sandstone Development.
Staff report, page 1

Council’s motion differs from staff’s recommendation

Staff report, page 1
DocumentsStaff report about Environment & Natural Resources, Governance & Civic Engagement, Parks & Recreation, Transportation & Mobility

Sheryl Armstrong Yes

I understand that for me. I only use an AAP for what I deem as something operational necessity for the city. Nobody else. And I've always voted against aps removing Parkland. I get that it's a big issue. However. It's very important to me that I stay by that because I heard that loud and clear for many of the constituents I talked to that they feel that they're being let out of decision making that has huge impacts on their well being and park being one of them. Although when I do look at this, I think there's actually going to be a bigger benefit. For the community, and I don't think it's going to hurt.

Hilary Eastmure Yes

Thank you. And. Similarly, I know. There is hesitation around the use of the AAP process. And I appreciate this additional information as well. And I was thinking that we would potentially have other referendum issues coming up in the nearish future that this could be rolled into and part of and that we wouldn't have to. Do it on its own, but perhaps that's just not logistically possible.