MOOSE JAW — City council’s discussion about a proposed supportive housing project became heated at one point, as Coun. Patrick Boyle argued with city administration and other councillors about how best to address the issue.
Boyle said during the July 14 regular council meeting that he was frustrated that neither Ranch Ehrlo nor British Columbia-based Trinity Real Estate — which purchased 1101 Grafton Avenue, the former Chez Nous Care Home — were present to speak. He was also disgusted that a company would profit off people’s addictions.
Furthermore, he thought the zoning bylaw needed to be updated because there were inconsistencies in what was considered discretionary — daycares and medical offices — and what was considered permitted — supportive housing — in the R3 high-density residential district.
“… it’s the proponent’s job to engage the community to get buy-in,” he added. “We need to put the onus on them and not council to do the engagement.”
Making a request
During the discussion, Coun. Chris Warren introduced two motions: that administration formally request that Ranch Ehrlo conduct a public information session, and that administration conduct further research on supportive housing (in other municipalities) and include potential options and recommendations in the new draft zoning bylaw.
Coun. Dawn Luhning, the meeting chairwoman, had no issue with the first motion but pointed out that the project fits the bylaw and wasn’t sure council could force a business to do anything, let alone provide more information to residents.
This topic is difficult, but council must be careful because if it denies the development application, Ranch Ehrlo and Trinity Real Estate could sue the City of Moose Jaw, she added. If they win, taxpayers will pay that bill.
Amending the motion
Boyle then attempted to amend the first motion so it asked Ranch Ehrlo to “voluntarily pause” its project until it completed a public information session.
Tamara Harrison, the assistant city solicitor, said the development permit “is in order” and the municipality must grant it. Meanwhile, she was concerned with Warren’s second motion since the wording could “encroach upon” and limit the city’s lawful authority to alter, delay or deny an application based on a permitted use.
“… at a minimum, I would suggest that administration be allowed to provide some insight into that to avoid legal repercussions,” Harrison added.
The tension rises
City manager Maryse Carmichael chimed in and said Boyle’s amendment was likely out of order since it “significantly” changed the intent of Warren’s initial motion.
“Explain that to me. I disagree completely with that,” snapped Boyle.
Carmichael replied that the first motion asked Ranch Ehrlo to provide a community information session, while the amendment asks it to pause the project. Those are “two very different things.”
“… the two things are connected inherently,” growled Boyle.
Continuing, he said Ranch Ehrlo could complete the building renovations and then hold a public information session months or years later. However, “the crux of the issue” that council was debating and that a concerned resident discussed earlier was acquiring more information.
Administration told Boyle that contractors are currently renovating the building, so pausing the project could cause cost overruns and completion delays for Ranch Ehrlo.
“… frankly, I don’t actually care about what costs they would incur. We’re asking them a question to sit down and talk with our residents,” Boyle said. “They don’t have to do it; it’s a voluntary thing, that’s what (the amendment) says.”
Amendment is prohibited
Luhning replied that elected officials should care about whether the municipality could face a lawsuit for cancelling a project that’s legal and fits the zoning bylaw.
Luhning added that, as the meeting chairwoman, she thought the amendment changed the original motion’s intent. She admitted to not knowing how to handle it but would allow it to proceed even if it went against procedure.
Warren said he appreciated Boyle’s amendment, but agreed that it changed his motion’s intent and wouldn’t request that of the non-profit.
After learning from administration that city hall had already issued the development and building permits, Luhning ruled that the amendment was prohibited and the first motion would be left as is.
Boyle then introduced a separate motion that asked administration to formally request that Ranch Ehrlo voluntarily pause its project until it completed a public information session.
Council then voted unanimously to support both of Warren’s motions.
Lack of information
Meanwhile, Carmichael said council should remember that there is a difference between the property owner — Trinity Real Estate — and Ranch Ehrlo, while she was unsure which organization was completing the renovations. Moreover, she was unsure whether Boyle wanted the building upgrades halted or the start of the programming paused.
Carmichael’s confusion speaks to the lack of information about this project, while Ranch Ehrlo likely has the power to pause the project because it’s paying for it, Boyle said. How the non-profit worked out the pause request with a private entity was not his concern.
“I’m only concerned about my citizens and not about the B.C. company,” he added, prompting the packed gallery to applaud.
The assistant city clerk chimed in and said the last clause in Boyle’s motion — “until it completed a public information session” — was redundant since it duplicated Warren’s first motion. Therefore, that part was out of order; Boyle agreed to remove it.
Carmichael then asked council to take a brief recess so administration could provide legal advice in private; council agreed and the group went to the adjacent Scoop Lewry Room for about 12 minutes.
Upon returning, Boyle said, based on legal advice the assistant city solicitor provided, he would withdraw his motion.
Other comments
During the meeting, Warren asked administration whether it had researched whether other Saskatchewan municipalities were approving supportive housing projects, either as discretionary use or approved use applications.
Derek Blais, director of community services, said his department has conducted research and created a spreadsheet with data from Kirsten Downey, who spoke earlier in the meeting.
Continuing, he said his team looked at five of the largest cities in Saskatchewan, and with three, 62 per cent had permitted uses and 38 per cent had discretionary uses.
In Alberta, of the cities reviewed, 47 per cent allowed supportive housing as permitted, while 53 per cent had discretionary uses; in Manitoba, 40 per cent were permitted and 60 per cent were discretionary; and in B.C., 16 per cent were permitted and 84 per cent were discretionary.
Warren said that when he analyzed other cities’ zoning bylaws, he looked for when they were last updated. He pointed out that significant social issues have been increasing during the past few years and major cities have faced them sooner than Moose Jaw. In comparison, The Friendly City last updated its zoning bylaw in 2019.
He added that he spoke to the CEO of Ranch Ehrlo and felt “really good” about the project after the conversation.
Administration told council that it is working on updating the zoning bylaw and could provide a draft by late 2025.
Coun. Heather Eby said that if council denied Ranch Ehrlo’s permit even though it was compliant with the rules, then members could likely find a way to deny permits for other developments, which was “a slippery slope.”
She added that that was not the message council wanted to send to prospective builders, who would see Moose Jaw as being closed for business.
Mayor James Murdock said it was “a big error” that there was no community consultation about this project, which would have alleviated residents’ concerns. He said he also struggled with the fact that Ranch Ehrlo was proceeding with its project with little public dialogue.
Coun. Carla Delaurier said this issue was heavy on her as a resident and a city official, while she thought it put council “between a rock and a hard place.”
Coun. Jamey Logan said there was no harm in asking Ranch Ehrlo to pause and perform its due diligence because of a bylaw error. He also didn’t think it would harm the city legally.
The next regular council meeting is Monday, July 28.
