OR
Gorilla Ridge!
Trying 'Googleing" Silverback.
What you get is what potential tourists will think is in Sechelt, maybe?
What you get is what potential tourists will think is in Sechelt, maybe?
LATEST UPDATE
COME BACK OFTEN FOR UPDATED MATERIAL
Contact/JOIN your community association to assist - see main SCAF page.
LATEST NEWS/ITEMS - In Brief here and then moved down into place)
Aw! Come on. Keep your sense of humour while we muddle through this.
IMPORTANT - Our definition of Meetings
Leave your thoughts and comments about this proposed development in a guestbook for future review and maybe to take to council.
Go to the OUR SilverBack Guestbook.
Go to the OUR SilverBack Guestbook.
Will take down this page and file it on or about April 10
The formal announcement from the DoS except - it's wrong! The word is that the meeting in in the Seaside Centre!
May 2, 2008 - Coast Reporter
Letters - 4 against - there were none for
Greg Amos Article
Editorial - somewhat spurred by the letters.
Greg Amos Article
Editorial - somewhat spurred by the letters.
AN EMAIL APPEAL THAT WAS SENT
(By Someone who wants to help)
(By Someone who wants to help)
PLEASE be sure and turn out for the Sechelt Council meeting on Wednesday,May 7th at the Seaside Centre. Get there early- by 7 PM - if you can so asto occupy the front of the hall with our elected representatives having toface us, because we hear that the front two rows will be filled with glaring developer/ building trades types to intimidate the good guys.
After all the negative meetings with literally 100s of residents speakingout, and the defeat at the Council meeting of April 9th, there is no excuse forthe Mayor to use his imperial power to re-open this matter. There are somany falsehoods and misrepresentations that confuse the issue. Just a few:
1. The $8 million for sewer is not a gift. SilverBack gets the right topotentially hook up all 1600 homes with no extra costs leaving little forthe current sewer issue.
2. There is no bypass road to the Extra Foods as originally set out.
3. There is no real plan to help you through Sechelt when the intersection ofWharf and 101 are plugged by a potential 2000 to 3000 more cars (SilverBackand 3 or 4 other projects under review) from the east side of the inlet.
4. The developer asked to have the requirement for the golf course taken outof the agreements so maybe he just wants to build a bunch of high risecondos on the water and go back to Calgary. Or do you trust him to buildwhat is not documented?
5. They talk of a big infusion of residential tax money from the new housesbut these come at a cost that has never been studied - more police, morehospital, more roads, more waste managment needs, everything that is infrastructure.
6. Why would 1600 recreational owners who live in Calgary, for example,contribute to the services of the District, to the large volunteer force. In factthey could be a voting bloc to stop anything good for real residents.
7. Something will built on this land but let's make it something that isgood for Sechelt, not just enrich an Alberta developer and the off-coast builders. Think about it all and show up on Wednesday. Read more athttp://sechelt.net/silverback.html
Thank you in advance.
After all the negative meetings with literally 100s of residents speakingout, and the defeat at the Council meeting of April 9th, there is no excuse forthe Mayor to use his imperial power to re-open this matter. There are somany falsehoods and misrepresentations that confuse the issue. Just a few:
1. The $8 million for sewer is not a gift. SilverBack gets the right topotentially hook up all 1600 homes with no extra costs leaving little forthe current sewer issue.
2. There is no bypass road to the Extra Foods as originally set out.
3. There is no real plan to help you through Sechelt when the intersection ofWharf and 101 are plugged by a potential 2000 to 3000 more cars (SilverBackand 3 or 4 other projects under review) from the east side of the inlet.
4. The developer asked to have the requirement for the golf course taken outof the agreements so maybe he just wants to build a bunch of high risecondos on the water and go back to Calgary. Or do you trust him to buildwhat is not documented?
5. They talk of a big infusion of residential tax money from the new housesbut these come at a cost that has never been studied - more police, morehospital, more roads, more waste managment needs, everything that is infrastructure.
6. Why would 1600 recreational owners who live in Calgary, for example,contribute to the services of the District, to the large volunteer force. In factthey could be a voting bloc to stop anything good for real residents.
7. Something will built on this land but let's make it something that isgood for Sechelt, not just enrich an Alberta developer and the off-coast builders. Think about it all and show up on Wednesday. Read more athttp://sechelt.net/silverback.html
Thank you in advance.
Is "IT" Over Now????
The May 9th, 2008 Coast Reporter
The May 9th, 2008 Coast Reporter
Front Page Article - including the Mayor's 'respectful "You didn't ask." remark.
That crude poll's results
A pretty good Editorial - see the last paragraph highlighting the DoS leadership skills
Two Letters
That crude poll's results
A pretty good Editorial - see the last paragraph highlighting the DoS leadership skills
Two Letters
AHHHHHHHHH! It ain't over - maybe - who knows.
April 23/08- (from citizen - not your webmaster) - The best way would be to contact councillors to find out what reason they have been given for a re-vote--what has changed. Also, whether there have been any changes to the bylaws that we have all seen, or to the agreements that were the subject of the workshop. If nothing on the legal side has changed, it's hard to see why another vote would yield a different result.
It would make sense to ask the Councillors themselves--all of them, but especially Thirkell, Inkster, Allan and Shanks. The best way is to speak to them in person rather than send emails or letters, and make notes of what they say. Here are contact numbers:
Mike Shanks 885-3644
Warren Allan 740-0815
Keith Thirkell 885-1070
Darren Inkster 740-8076
It would also be in order to call the director of planning, Ray Parfitt, 885-1986, to ask whether there have been any changes to the amendments. If he doesn't return your call within a day or so, make a note and call back.
As to how I know a reconsideration is in the works: the mayor told me himself yesterday when I spoke to him about 3:30 on the stairway after the infrastructure meeting, then two councillors showed me the memo notifying them.
April 22/08 - (from citizen) - Mayor Reid has informed Council that he is exercising his authority under section 131 of the Community Charter to bring Silverback back to Council. Both the OCP Amendment and the Zoning Amendment bylaws are to go onto the agenda of the May 7 Council meeting.
It would make sense to ask the Councillors themselves--all of them, but especially Thirkell, Inkster, Allan and Shanks. The best way is to speak to them in person rather than send emails or letters, and make notes of what they say. Here are contact numbers:
Mike Shanks 885-3644
Warren Allan 740-0815
Keith Thirkell 885-1070
Darren Inkster 740-8076
It would also be in order to call the director of planning, Ray Parfitt, 885-1986, to ask whether there have been any changes to the amendments. If he doesn't return your call within a day or so, make a note and call back.
As to how I know a reconsideration is in the works: the mayor told me himself yesterday when I spoke to him about 3:30 on the stairway after the infrastructure meeting, then two councillors showed me the memo notifying them.
April 22/08 - (from citizen) - Mayor Reid has informed Council that he is exercising his authority under section 131 of the Community Charter to bring Silverback back to Council. Both the OCP Amendment and the Zoning Amendment bylaws are to go onto the agenda of the May 7 Council meeting.
It is Over For NOW!
At the council meeting on Wednesday, April 2, 2008 in a 4/3 spilt vote SilverBack was voted down at its crucial third reading and change of OCP stage. Upon reading the motion the Mayor then asked each councillor to express his views - just once - and then the vote would be called. In the order they spoke:
Poole - was strongly in favour as it would help with the sewer and the Affordable housing component while very tiny could be used as a bargaining chip for greater things. The property set aside by the proponent would be worth more when sub-divided and when SilverBack was finished.
Thirkell - dead against it but spoke mostly to the failure of the proponent to meet even minimal Affordable Housing demands. Audience applause.
Steeves - for it since it would help out with the sewer issue (Ed. created in large part by council approving so many large projects in the first place without a sewer plan). (Ed. He neglected to mention that the SCRD of which he is the Chair had strongly called for a delay in the project until some sort of potable water plan could be worked out.)
Reid - all for it. He declared that this was better than the alternate - a gravel pit (Ed. News, the commercially viable gravel was taken out over 15 years ago) and proceeded to list the things he saw as good even though some of the items he mentioned were not in the plan or had been amended to be not so good. Link road (Ed. SIB withdrew from this);grey water would be used by residents to wash cars! (Ed. Every house will not have a separate tap - one for potable and one for grey. It is grey water for watering the golf course.) And more. Some audience boos and noises.
Inkster - came on strongly and effective against it 1- where are the ideas contained in the visioning plan? 2- Not a good idea to build 1600 units in a linear settlement pattern so far from the downtown.3- No substantial commitment to affordable housing. 4- Where are the transporation improvements needed to service the development.5- There is no plan for effective, efficient , and safe use of our emercency personnel so far from the town core.
6-Sewer agreement is unclear and may have future liability for the citizens of Sechelt.
Fundamentally not the right project - too big, too soon. Audience applause.
Allan - was most eloquent and challenged the Mayor to proceed with some sort of gravel pit. He reminded Steeves of the SCRD water demand letters (2) on file recently. He made it clear that the community was not for it. He cited the confusion and lack of solid information in many areas. He stated he sensed the lawyer was not happy with his job of making the agreements but could only do the best he could to try and protect the public. Loud audience applause.
Shanks - spoke at length with some confusion about the sewer and the other aspects but did not reveal which way he was going to vote.
At that point the question was called and there it was with the Mayor and Poole and Steeves for with the rest against. To add to the tension Shanks delayed raising his hand with the nays for a second or so. Whew!
No doubt something will be built here some day but whatever is a restart of some kind. What is the status of the property now - industrial, the former Terraces status or what.
Anyway in a week or so we can take down this very large web page and save some web space for more wonderful things!
Poole - was strongly in favour as it would help with the sewer and the Affordable housing component while very tiny could be used as a bargaining chip for greater things. The property set aside by the proponent would be worth more when sub-divided and when SilverBack was finished.
Thirkell - dead against it but spoke mostly to the failure of the proponent to meet even minimal Affordable Housing demands. Audience applause.
Steeves - for it since it would help out with the sewer issue (Ed. created in large part by council approving so many large projects in the first place without a sewer plan). (Ed. He neglected to mention that the SCRD of which he is the Chair had strongly called for a delay in the project until some sort of potable water plan could be worked out.)
Reid - all for it. He declared that this was better than the alternate - a gravel pit (Ed. News, the commercially viable gravel was taken out over 15 years ago) and proceeded to list the things he saw as good even though some of the items he mentioned were not in the plan or had been amended to be not so good. Link road (Ed. SIB withdrew from this);grey water would be used by residents to wash cars! (Ed. Every house will not have a separate tap - one for potable and one for grey. It is grey water for watering the golf course.) And more. Some audience boos and noises.
Inkster - came on strongly and effective against it 1- where are the ideas contained in the visioning plan? 2- Not a good idea to build 1600 units in a linear settlement pattern so far from the downtown.3- No substantial commitment to affordable housing. 4- Where are the transporation improvements needed to service the development.5- There is no plan for effective, efficient , and safe use of our emercency personnel so far from the town core.
6-Sewer agreement is unclear and may have future liability for the citizens of Sechelt.
Fundamentally not the right project - too big, too soon. Audience applause.
Allan - was most eloquent and challenged the Mayor to proceed with some sort of gravel pit. He reminded Steeves of the SCRD water demand letters (2) on file recently. He made it clear that the community was not for it. He cited the confusion and lack of solid information in many areas. He stated he sensed the lawyer was not happy with his job of making the agreements but could only do the best he could to try and protect the public. Loud audience applause.
Shanks - spoke at length with some confusion about the sewer and the other aspects but did not reveal which way he was going to vote.
At that point the question was called and there it was with the Mayor and Poole and Steeves for with the rest against. To add to the tension Shanks delayed raising his hand with the nays for a second or so. Whew!
No doubt something will be built here some day but whatever is a restart of some kind. What is the status of the property now - industrial, the former Terraces status or what.
Anyway in a week or so we can take down this very large web page and save some web space for more wonderful things!
March 5 - Council Meeting and things start to change - read a brief report
February 27th - Council Meeting (sic)
Read a report here
Read the minutes of the meeting
February 27th - Council Meeting (sic)
Read a report here
Read the minutes of the meeting
See the agreements
Huge PDF file on District website
(2 files - 7 page file and over 152 page file )
In a series of PDF files by subject
(smaller packages to choose)
Huge PDF file on District website
(2 files - 7 page file and over 152 page file )
In a series of PDF files by subject
(smaller packages to choose)
Workshop on Agreements - March 18
Lawyer handled very well. LOTS learned and many parts are worse than ever expected.
Why is the Golf Course building not required so we just take SilverBack's word?
Lawyer handled very well. LOTS learned and many parts are worse than ever expected.
Why is the Golf Course building not required so we just take SilverBack's word?
Some Presentations and stuff from the Public Meeting (about 75 in attendance) with applause after each negative talk.
Some good ones we do not have copies of:
--- the former developer who at prior meeting had supported the project and now "ate humble pie" and reversed his position to a negative.
--- The wonderful anecdote about Minniapolis and how Sechelt could learn
Disgusting - Phillips telling everyone they were dummies and did not know what they were talking about as he rudely flipped through pages of a note book and told everyone off. IF there were so many answers 'out there' why didn't this multi- million dollar developer produce a new updated CDP book with full details instead of everyone relying on researching old files and books.Until they see it all laid out how can anyone support it. See a letter on this.
Some Presentations we have copies of:
Dan Fivehouse - super on everything
Bob D'Arcy - part one on 'roads' for East Inlet group
Ian Winn - part two on roads for East inlet Group
Some good ones we do not have copies of:
--- the former developer who at prior meeting had supported the project and now "ate humble pie" and reversed his position to a negative.
--- The wonderful anecdote about Minniapolis and how Sechelt could learn
Disgusting - Phillips telling everyone they were dummies and did not know what they were talking about as he rudely flipped through pages of a note book and told everyone off. IF there were so many answers 'out there' why didn't this multi- million dollar developer produce a new updated CDP book with full details instead of everyone relying on researching old files and books.Until they see it all laid out how can anyone support it. See a letter on this.
Some Presentations we have copies of:
Dan Fivehouse - super on everything
Bob D'Arcy - part one on 'roads' for East Inlet group
Ian Winn - part two on roads for East inlet Group
Feb. 29 - Critique of Meeting
IMPORTANT to all of Sechelt
Consider - even if overall you are for SilverBack that from Feb. 20 to Feb 27 we were looking at::
a) broken commitments to you, the public for consultation
b) fast track for convenience of one side of council table
c) dictatorial
d) lack of expertise in District for multi-billion dollar deal negotiations - proposed hiring of expert in 2006 ignored
... and more.
a) broken commitments to you, the public for consultation
b) fast track for convenience of one side of council table
c) dictatorial
d) lack of expertise in District for multi-billion dollar deal negotiations - proposed hiring of expert in 2006 ignored
... and more.
Leading up to the Feb. 27 meeting
Mayor to East Porpoise - addressing concerns
Jackel on Affordable Housing 27/2
Sandy Hook sends letter
Alice Janisch challenges in letter
Sue Jackel to Mayor again
D'Arcy email - sent to lots
Sue Jackel comments on Mayor's Response
East Porposie Bay to Mayor and all
Coast Reporter Article
Mayor's Response (looks like Mr. Brown's prose but...)
Sue Jackel Email Letter - February 21
With Excert from July 10, 2007
Mayor and Council,
February 20th - Mayor drops 'BOMB' that SilverBack is going to 4th reading at a Special Council meeting on February 27th. REACTION IS FAST AND FURIOUS - Read the announcement
Mayor to East Porpoise - addressing concerns
Jackel on Affordable Housing 27/2
Sandy Hook sends letter
Alice Janisch challenges in letter
Sue Jackel to Mayor again
D'Arcy email - sent to lots
Sue Jackel comments on Mayor's Response
East Porposie Bay to Mayor and all
Coast Reporter Article
Mayor's Response (looks like Mr. Brown's prose but...)
Sue Jackel Email Letter - February 21
With Excert from July 10, 2007
Mayor and Council,
February 20th - Mayor drops 'BOMB' that SilverBack is going to 4th reading at a Special Council meeting on February 27th. REACTION IS FAST AND FURIOUS - Read the announcement
Nov. 1 - Updated spreadsheet of bylaw
Read what the Community Association had to say - below.
Read the some silly answers to the questions submitted.
Read the some silly answers to the questions submitted.
SPECIAL
An important from the Vancouver Sun of September 13th on fractional ownership "hotels" - SEE
A series of question sheets prepared by the SCAF committee - See them all together in PDF
An important from the Vancouver Sun of September 13th on fractional ownership "hotels" - SEE
A series of question sheets prepared by the SCAF committee - See them all together in PDF
On November 15/06, Council passed SilverBack 3rd reading sending it on its way to full approval. Some agreements need to be worked out but most of these will be in camera and when the development comes forward for 4th and final reading it will be a 'done deal'
Vote: Reid, Steeves, Poole and Shanks for - Inkster, Allan and Thirkell against. Exactly as was predicted some 6 months ago or more ago.
Vote: Reid, Steeves, Poole and Shanks for - Inkster, Allan and Thirkell against. Exactly as was predicted some 6 months ago or more ago.
December 20/06 - at Council Rupert Clark makes brief presentation with telling questions. The Mayor advised that Staff will respond. Let's see when. READ THE PRESENTATION
An important article from the Vancouver Sun of September 13th on fractional ownership "hotels" - SEE
A Spreadsheet to show the development of the SilverBack proposed bylaw - updated as changes are made or at least advised.
A Spreadsheet to show the development of the SilverBack proposed bylaw - updated as changes are made or at least advised.
What is in a word? In the process of a bylaw or zoning change there are meetings to inform the public - some times, at least. Inform is the tricky word.
Open Houses - are not public meetings or pubilc consultations. They are presentations, much like a sales pitch, usually with billboards with pictures and drawings. In attendance are proponents for a development and they will answer questions one on one. They do not take questions from the audience as a whole or answer for the record.
In Sechelt these are most often held at Seaside Centre with coffee and pretty good cookies.
Public Consultation Meetings - are where the public are really consulted, listened to and where they get some answers. The format is usually:
- a large room with chairs for the public and a head table
- there is a chairperson or facilliataor, best if independent and unbiased.
- the proponent makes a public presentation about the development to all present and then stands by for the public portion.
- the public get to ask questions of the proponents at a microphone so all can hear the questions and the answers. It is fair to limit the time of each member of the public at each turn BUT they can have more than one turn.
- while there is some debate whether the answers are in any way legally binding, they certainly set a moral precedent that Council may rely on with the public.
- the meeting may be recorded for a permanent record of the proceedings.
-more meetings may be held if time runs out or there are questions the developer wishes to 'get back on'.
Most times issues are cleared or modifications are made for fair compromises by both sides to any problem giving a bit. The overall quality of life issues can be protected.
Public Hearings - in the legal sense in the process of a zoning or bylaw change. One of these is usually required after the first reading of an enabling bylaw. The members of the public can make written submissions or stand up and speak their minds about the development BUT there is NO feedback at all. No questions asked, no committments made. It is a bitch or compliment session - strickly one sided. When it is over the only response the public will get is the vote at the next council meeting scheduled to deal with the matter.
A common problem is that if there have not been enough "public consultations" then the public voice thoughts about things that are not true or may be acceptable to them or miss important things to comment upon - all because they have had no opportunity to be informed. Sadly, they often fail to address what the actual bylaw is about in their frustration over lack of openess by the developer.
On the positive side, such a meeting can be a complimentary experience and of great assistance to Council when the public is informed. The public can present helpfull suggestions to resolve issues and it can be a win-win.
Open Houses - are not public meetings or pubilc consultations. They are presentations, much like a sales pitch, usually with billboards with pictures and drawings. In attendance are proponents for a development and they will answer questions one on one. They do not take questions from the audience as a whole or answer for the record.
In Sechelt these are most often held at Seaside Centre with coffee and pretty good cookies.
Public Consultation Meetings - are where the public are really consulted, listened to and where they get some answers. The format is usually:
- a large room with chairs for the public and a head table
- there is a chairperson or facilliataor, best if independent and unbiased.
- the proponent makes a public presentation about the development to all present and then stands by for the public portion.
- the public get to ask questions of the proponents at a microphone so all can hear the questions and the answers. It is fair to limit the time of each member of the public at each turn BUT they can have more than one turn.
- while there is some debate whether the answers are in any way legally binding, they certainly set a moral precedent that Council may rely on with the public.
- the meeting may be recorded for a permanent record of the proceedings.
-more meetings may be held if time runs out or there are questions the developer wishes to 'get back on'.
Most times issues are cleared or modifications are made for fair compromises by both sides to any problem giving a bit. The overall quality of life issues can be protected.
Public Hearings - in the legal sense in the process of a zoning or bylaw change. One of these is usually required after the first reading of an enabling bylaw. The members of the public can make written submissions or stand up and speak their minds about the development BUT there is NO feedback at all. No questions asked, no committments made. It is a bitch or compliment session - strickly one sided. When it is over the only response the public will get is the vote at the next council meeting scheduled to deal with the matter.
A common problem is that if there have not been enough "public consultations" then the public voice thoughts about things that are not true or may be acceptable to them or miss important things to comment upon - all because they have had no opportunity to be informed. Sadly, they often fail to address what the actual bylaw is about in their frustration over lack of openess by the developer.
On the positive side, such a meeting can be a complimentary experience and of great assistance to Council when the public is informed. The public can present helpfull suggestions to resolve issues and it can be a win-win.
From SilverBack
October 17 - SilverBack reponses to the pubic questions from the ads in the paper (PDF). Note lack of detail, lack of completness, failure to even use a spell check - even some rudeness.
Changes (1) that have been
made to the SilverBack project following the original submission.
The Main Report
June 2006 - In PDF - 90 pages - 5 megs. It is long on words but short on real answers to many of the questions. While it may be unfair, the impression is that because the prior development, The Terraces, was approved then this one is a slam-dunk and requires no detail.
The only common factors are the location and that there is a golf course. EVERTHING else is changed.
The Bunt TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY?
October 17 - SilverBack reponses to the pubic questions from the ads in the paper (PDF). Note lack of detail, lack of completness, failure to even use a spell check - even some rudeness.
Changes (1) that have been
made to the SilverBack project following the original submission.
The Main Report
June 2006 - In PDF - 90 pages - 5 megs. It is long on words but short on real answers to many of the questions. While it may be unfair, the impression is that because the prior development, The Terraces, was approved then this one is a slam-dunk and requires no detail.
The only common factors are the location and that there is a golf course. EVERTHING else is changed.
The Bunt TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY?
District of Sechelt
October 6 - Ad in the Coast Reporter (PSF) which extend the previously advised closing date . Still very short and must be hand delivered.
JULY 19 -
Some of the Email correspondance to get on as a delegation. - Click Main comments proposed SH. These had to be cut short and ad libbed down to a couple of minutes due to the imposed 10 minute rule of the Chair, B. Poole. - (Described in emails above) - Click for full presentation- (hard copy supplied to all)The Vote - brief account of what transpired Click
JULY 11 - The DoS Planning Meeting. B. Poole as chair but all there in attandance including the MayorJuly 11 Planner report PDF 2 meg The proposed Comprehensive Bylaw PDF - 660 KB NOTE: In report above the Planner advises that due to 'time constraints' the bylaw has not even been vetted by legal counsel. Where is due diligence for the biggest development in Sechelt's history?July 11 Call for Decision by Planner - PDF - 92KB - The recommendation was passed by the committee made up of ALL the councillors and Mayor with only Warren Allan and Keith Thirkell voting against it. It is off to council for first reading and then a "public hearing" (see definitions on this page)
October 6 - Ad in the Coast Reporter (PSF) which extend the previously advised closing date . Still very short and must be hand delivered.
JULY 19 -
Some of the Email correspondance to get on as a delegation. - Click Main comments proposed SH. These had to be cut short and ad libbed down to a couple of minutes due to the imposed 10 minute rule of the Chair, B. Poole. - (Described in emails above) - Click for full presentation- (hard copy supplied to all)The Vote - brief account of what transpired Click
JULY 11 - The DoS Planning Meeting. B. Poole as chair but all there in attandance including the MayorJuly 11 Planner report PDF 2 meg The proposed Comprehensive Bylaw PDF - 660 KB NOTE: In report above the Planner advises that due to 'time constraints' the bylaw has not even been vetted by legal counsel. Where is due diligence for the biggest development in Sechelt's history?July 11 Call for Decision by Planner - PDF - 92KB - The recommendation was passed by the committee made up of ALL the councillors and Mayor with only Warren Allan and Keith Thirkell voting against it. It is off to council for first reading and then a "public hearing" (see definitions on this page)
Community Input
A Village director says her piece - Read it
October 19 - Communioty Associations Presentaion at the Public Hearing
A personal review of the Sept. 13th meeting
A series of question sheets prepared by the SCAF committee - See them all together in PDF
New spreadsheet comparing the SilverBack bylaw development
July 20 - Sandy Hook email to members - Click
East Porposie Bay Ratepayers Association - Comments of July7/06 - web format
Joint Submission of East Porpoise, Sandy Hook and Tuwanek for July 11/06 Planning meeting -
Tuwanek Support letter for above - IN PDF
JULY 19 -
Some of the Email correspondance to get on as a delegation. - Click
Tuwanek support for the following by East Porpoise and Sandy Hook - Read it
President of East Porpoise Bay, Lorraine Gallant - opening remarks - Read them.
President of Sandy Hook - Peter Harvey - remarks to focus - Click (hard copy supplied to all)
Vice President of Sandy Hook - main comments proposed. These had to be cut short and ad libbed down to a couple of minutes due to the imposed 10 minute rule of the Chair, B. Poole. -See Emails above - Click for all of it - (hard copy supplied to all)
The Vote - brief account of what transpired Click
July 18 Sandy Hook letter -just in case! - Click
A Village director says her piece - Read it
October 19 - Communioty Associations Presentaion at the Public Hearing
A personal review of the Sept. 13th meeting
A series of question sheets prepared by the SCAF committee - See them all together in PDF
New spreadsheet comparing the SilverBack bylaw development
July 20 - Sandy Hook email to members - Click
East Porposie Bay Ratepayers Association - Comments of July7/06 - web format
Joint Submission of East Porpoise, Sandy Hook and Tuwanek for July 11/06 Planning meeting -
Tuwanek Support letter for above - IN PDF
JULY 19 -
Some of the Email correspondance to get on as a delegation. - Click
Tuwanek support for the following by East Porpoise and Sandy Hook - Read it
President of East Porpoise Bay, Lorraine Gallant - opening remarks - Read them.
President of Sandy Hook - Peter Harvey - remarks to focus - Click (hard copy supplied to all)
Vice President of Sandy Hook - main comments proposed. These had to be cut short and ad libbed down to a couple of minutes due to the imposed 10 minute rule of the Chair, B. Poole. -See Emails above - Click for all of it - (hard copy supplied to all)
The Vote - brief account of what transpired Click
July 18 Sandy Hook letter -just in case! - Click