West Coast Olefins proposed natural gas liquids extraction plant in Pineview will not be going to the Agricultural Land Commission for consideration, following a vote by the Regional District of Fraser-Fort George board of directors on Thursday.
In a nine-to-five vote, the board defeated a motion to refer the project to the ALC for consideration as a non-farm use. The vote means the applicant and ALC will be informed, and the project will not be considered further, district CAO Jim Martin explained prior to the debate.
The controversial project was proposed on a 12.9 hectare area, located between McRinny Road and Lund Road in the Pineview/Buckhorn area.
“West Coast Olefins application on this land… is clearly wrong,” director Bill Empey said. “It has certainly been established that Pineview is not in support.”
Empey said directors received a 2,000-name petition in opposition to the project, along with many letters, emails and phone calls in opposition to the project.
“I stand firmly in opposition, with the people of Pineview, (Electoral) Area D and from Prince George,” he said.
Empey, and directors Kevin Dunphy, Owen Torgensen, Dannielle Alan, Joan Atkinson, Murry Krause, Lara Beckett, Terry Burgess (standing in for Pat Crook) and chairperson Art Kaehn opposed the motion to forward the project to the ALC.
Directors Warren Wilson, Allan Frederick, Lyn Hall, Kyle Sampson and Terri McConnachie voted in favour.
Burgess, a long-time former director of the district, said an industrial land study done by the City of Prince George in partnership with the regional district identified many other, more suitable sites for industrial use – including sites near the Enbridge natural gas pipeline.
“It should be to no one’s surprise that none of them looked at farmland in Pineview,” Burgess said. “It shouldn’t go to the land commission, it should be killed in its tracks.”
Beckett said that when she looks at non-farm use of agricultural land, she considers the impact on farm use, and whether it would support or complement the farm use.
“A large chunk of land will be effected by this use. This use could go elsewhere, in lands that are appropriately zoned for it,” Beckett said.
However, Beckett said she was alarmed by some of the communication the board received from people opposed to the project.
“I was appalled by some of the bullying and threatening language used in some of those letters,” she said.
Some of the letters implied the directors who had voted in favour of moving the project to the ALC had ulterior motives, she added.
Sampson said he received some thoughtful, and well-reasoned arguments from people concerned about the project.
“(But) threats, intimidation tactics and bullying… Those kinds of comments are not taken into consideration,” Sampson said. “You know what? Grow up.”
Sampson said he has never said he is in favour of the project, but believes it deserves a chance for a fair hearing through the ALC process – even after a short phone call with the applicant, which left him “frustrated” by the application's lack of accountability.
Hall said that he received a lot of good emails, but many people just used it as an opportunity to heap personal abuse on him and other directors.
“Because we sit around this table, that doesn’t give people the right (to be abusive),” Hall said.
Hall said he voted to advance the process to give the board a chance to hear from qualified experts about the proposed land use.
“To not hear from the applicant is just poor,” McConnachie said. “I think it would be important to not die here and move down the road.”
