Rich Mickle, one of the individuals seeking annexation of property on Catherwood Road into the City, sent me the following email on Tuesday, January 10. This is published in its entirety with his consent:
Dear Mr Rooney I thought the attached might help clarify the above subject , in particular, with the legal process. Thx Rich Mickle
Begin forwarded message:
From: Rich Mickle >
Date: December 13, 2016 at 8:12:18 AM EST
To: Lynda Shykora >
Cc: Director Martin, Charles Hamilton
Subject: Re: Annexation Process Catherwood Properties Revelstoke, Draft Response to Mr. Mickle
Good morning Lynda and thank you to you all for a prompt reply to my email request yesterday. While not the outcome I had hoped for I respect the Chair’s candor. “We believe that the amended, final resolution adopted by the Board in February, 2016 clearly states the position of the Board ” you cite in your reply. I couldn’t agree more. Isn’t ironical that the Director Area B CSRD does not share the same view as the Board? I have a similar view as does the Chair ” given that your property is the subject of an Alternative Approval Process currently underway for the boundary annexation of your property into the City of Revelstoke, the CSRD does not believe there is a need to become further involved in the legislated process that is underway.” and that is why I forwarded my request as we the owners of the two properties on Catherwood do not want to be involved in any promotion beyond the facts. Your Director Area B continues a “promotion” against the Board’s resolution without the benefit of accurately stating the Board’s resolution in February, 2016, and other misleading information to the residents of Revelstoke and Area B. This is unlawful.
Notwithstanding the above, thanks for your time and efforts and Happy Holidays to you all. Rich Mickle
On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 7:43 PM, Lynda Shykora :
Good afternoon, Mr. Mickle,
Our office has received the email that you have addressed to Mr. Hamilton, Chief Administrative Officer, CSRD.
In consultation with Rhona Martin, Chair, CSRD, this email is to advise, on behalf of the Chair, that:
The CSRD office will not be preparing a clarifying letter to the Revelstoke Mountaineer, Revelstoke Current or the Revelstoke Times Review about the resolution that was adopted at the Board meeting in February, 2016. Local Revelstoke media is able to contact the CSRD for clarification on the CSRD Board’s position on this matter, should they so choose.
We believe that the amended, final resolution adopted by the Board in February, 2016 clearly states the position of the Board that it (1) does not support an incremental approach to property annexation by the City of Revelstoke, (2) that the Board supports the development of a clear strategy to establish how property in the areas adjacent to the City could be integrated into the City (etc.)…, and (3) that the two properties located at 3304 and 3462 Catherwood Road be allowed to proceed as the application is with the Province.
As you may know the Board minutes from the CSRD meeting of February 18, 2016 are publicly available on the CSRD’s website – http://www.csrd.bc.ca/sites/default/files/meetings/pdfs/February%2018%202016%20Board%20Meeting%20Minutes.pdf. Specifically, the Board’s consideration of this matter is contained on Page 6, with the concluding, final amended motion contained on Page 7 (and as referenced above). Please note the discussion portion of the amendment motion which states that:
- A lengthy discussion took place on the motion, including comments on the boundary annexation process, right of property owners to apply to annex to the City respecting interest in City services; annexation of properties on the Thomas Brook water system is a separate matter; fairness in interrupting the annexation process if application(s) are already in the Province’s hands;
- With regard to individual properties being considered for annexation, the CSRD still supports a strategy which examines a larger area and takes into account matters beyond one or two parcel.
In terms of your request that our office contact the Area B Director to ask that her letter which was published in the online newspaper, the Revelstoke Mountaineer, be retracted and for a possible apology in relation to her comments on the annexation process, please be advised that the Chair considers this to be an internal, separate matter for the Chair to consider and to determine if further action is warranted on behalf of the CSRD.
We acknowledge the concerns stated in your email, Mr. Mickle. At the same time, given that your property is the subject of an Alternative Approval Process currently underway for the boundary annexation of your property into the City of Revelstoke, the CSRD does not believe there is a need to become further involved in the legislated process that is underway.
Lynda Shykora | Deputy Manager
Corporate Administration Services
Columbia Shuswap Regional District
From: Rich Mickle
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2016 5:27 AM
To: Charles Hamilton Cc: Lynda Shykora; Peter Bernacki; Melinda Bell; David Evans
Subject: Annexation Process Catherwood Properties Revelstoke
Mr. Hamilton, I am one of the owners along with Peter Bernacki and Melinda Bell included in the current Alternative Approval Process (AAP) underway which as you know completes this week on Friday December 16, 2016. I seek your immediate support in regards to a letter submitted to the Revelstoke Current online newspaper by your Director Area B ,CSRD which is both misleading and also factually incorrect. The letter is also a “promotion “ to object to the AAP which is already in process and the Director Area B is interfering with a lawful process. This is unlawful under the AAP laws in BC. Would you or an authorized official please write a clarifying letter to the Revelstoke Mountaineer, Revelstoke Current and Revelstoke Times Review to represent the facts on behalf of the CSRD? I would also respectfully ask that you contact your Director Area B advising that the published letter be retracted and also possibly apologize for this blatant overreach. We are attempting to mitigate ongoing and potentially ongoing damages in our attempt to follow what is otherwise an orderly process. Thank you very much Richard Mickle