Customize your website

Appellants believe concert venue approval was flawed



Joan Cumming, left, and Andrea Battison look through the evidence they prepared for an Island Regulatory and Appeals Commission appeal hearing Wednesday. The women appealed a decision by the city to approve the development of a concert and events site on Guardian photo

Joan Cumming, left, and Andrea Battison look through the evidence they prepared for an Island Regulatory and Appeals Commission appeal hearing Wednesday. The women appealed a decision by the city to approve the development of a concert and events site on

Published on September 2, 2010
Published on September 2, 2010
Ryan Ross RSS Feed
Topics :
Charlottetown Area Development , Island Regulatory and Appeals Commission , Grafton Street , Charlottetown

The women opposed to a new concert site on Grafton Street in Charlottetown pleaded their case at an Island Regulatory and Appeals Commission hearing Wednesday.

Joan Cumming and Andrea Battison appeared before the commission after they appealed a decision by the city to allow the Charlottetown Area Development Corporation (CADC) to move forward with a plan to turn parcels of land on the north and south sides of Grafton Street near the Hillsborough Bridge into an outdoor events site for up to 25,000 people and a parking lot for 121 cars and six buses.

Cumming was the first to take the stand and told commissioners the development would saturate the area with entertainment venues.

She said they had appealed the decision because there were unresolved issues.

“We challenge it on the belief the process was flawed,” she said.

As part of their presentation, the women used slides to show some of their concerns about the development, including one that showed residential streets with well-maintained properties, another showing

the overgrown site for the proposed development and a third showing an

overhead view of the area with blacked-out sections to point out all the asphalt

and lack of green space around the potential concert site.

The women filed the appeal based on what they said were concerns about a public meeting on the proposal, a lack of clarity about several issues including environmental concerns and a lack of information about studies done to look at other possible sites.

Cumming told the commission the city’s public meeting discussed several issues besides the proposed development, there wasn’t enough room for everyone who attended and people who had to wait in the hall couldn’t hear because a sound system wasn’t used at the meeting.

“This meeting fell far short of even the basic needs,” she said.

During his cross-examination, city solicitor David Hooley said the project was discussed for almost an hour and a half during the meeting and if anyone had something to say they would have realized the opportunity was there, even if they couldn’t hear everything that was said.

“If a person wanted to be heard, they would have been heard.”

He added a transcript of the meeting showed Mayor Clifford Lee adjourned the meeting because there weren’t any more people who wanted to speak and said the city hadn’t received any comments from people who complained because they weren’t able to voice their concerns.

“No one has come forward and said that.”

When commission chair Allan Rankin asked Battison if the women would have appealed the decision if the city had held a proper public forum, she replied that if everything had been done properly with plans that showed the development was the right way to go, she wouldn’t have appealed.

“I don’t believe so,” she said.

The commission also heard from Radya Rifaat, who was involved in a traffic study for the proposed development.

She said her company, Hatch Mott MacDonald, was asked to look at 25,000 cars maximum for any events, but with the number of people who used public transit for the Jack Frost Children’s Festival, people who live within walking

distance to the site and people who carpool, the

total would be about 5,000 cars in the area during an event.

“It’s not going to be 25,000 vehicles spilling into this area.”

The appeal hearing was adjourned at the end of the day and will resume Sept. 20 at 9:30 a.m. to hear testimony from the city and the CADC.

 

rross@theguardian.pe.ca

Comments

  • Username
    Dannyboy
    - September 8, 2010 at 16:51:07

    Great spot if you own Tim's and Wendy's Oh wait...Guess whoooo ????

    Submit a Comment

  • Username
    RallyRider
    - September 2, 2010 at 14:40:04

    What a great place this would be to compliment the bike rally next year! Perfect venue site.

    Submit a Comment

  • Username
    Watson Brown
    - September 2, 2010 at 13:37:55

    so... there was no real issue here other than people THOUGHT that MAYBE there was someone who MIGHT not like it but hadn't had the chance to say it even though they had...how much money and time do people have to waste around here? It's also no wonder that IRAC seems so one sided when the people involved in the appeals process just seem to be having show and tell...IRAC follows a system of law, they don't just DECIDE how things are going to happen. Just like in a court of law the side that presents the best facts has the better chance of winning the case. FEELING something and FACTUALLY PROVING something are two different things. Maybe next time if you say you have a problem with environmental issues you should actually have the research to back up those concerns and if you think people didn't get the chance to have their say, maybe find some of those people...so you can back that up too. That way IRAC might actually be useful to someone other than the people that have the money to hire lawyers to do this kind of thinking for them. AND you also wouldn't look like you were deliberately wasting peoples time and money. Nothing more time consuming on this island as it's inhabitants self inflated opinion that we apparently shouldn't do anything here until every single member of the population has had a chance to b*#$ch about it rather they have any idea what the he!! they are talking about or not..

    Submit a Comment

  • Username
    Dom
    - September 2, 2010 at 13:37:26

    This is an excellent location for the concert centre. With water views and access to all the resteraunts and pubs downtown it is a win/win situation. Surely this close minded woman is in the minority with her party pooper attitude.

    Submit a Comment

  • Username
    Tired of the complainers
    - September 2, 2010 at 13:37:13

    It is time for this to stop. These women are complaining now to a tribunal that because they believe that it wasn't a fair meeting. Yet after 90 minutes when no one else from the public wished to speak the meeting was adjourned. Now we as Island tax payers are paying for IRAC to sit in judgment. We as City taxpayers pay to have a senior partner of a prestigious law firm plead the common sense of a grade school child. We as Island and City taxpayers will pay for the lawyers of CADC to plead the case of common sense. All because two women feels that when the mayor asks "Does anyone else want to speak?" and no one answers.... John Q. Public didn't get a fair shake. It is time for this silliness to stop.... Maybe Tim B. is right.... maybe it is time to adjust the mandate of IRAC. Maybe as well it is time for citizen's to be responsible about the democratic process... A process wherein when you have an opportunity to speak your mind your realize your responsibility to stand up and say what is on your mind. With a culture like that, people will lose their credibility that they are speaking for the "silently oppressed public".

    Submit a Comment

  • Username
    Just Cause
    - September 2, 2010 at 13:35:57

    I'm behind you 100% ladies. An outdoor concert site in the middle of a residential area, an area that abuts the entrance to the Hillsboro Bridge is a bad idea. Period. Excessive noise and traffic congestion at a major entrance and exit point to and from the city are two good reasons for this never to have seen the light of day. Yet, this site will undoubtedly be filled with people ranting away that Charlottetown folk are spoilsports who inhibit development. Would these same people want it in their back yards??

    Submit a Comment

Submit a Comment

Submit a Comment

This form is NOT used for emailing the article to a friend. Please use the "Send to a friend" link at the top of the page for that purpose.

The Guardian is not responsible for posted comments. Please be polite and confine your comments to the subject of the posted story. If you have an account, please sign on to it..

(we keep all emails private)
Agreement

We ask that users remain courteous. You may not post insulting, discriminatory or inappropriate content, which may be removed at our discretion. We are not responsible for user content and opinions. Use of this site as well as content submission & ownership are governed by our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.

Member organizations should be non-profit in nature, and promote legal activities. Any organization found promoting illegal activities or commercial products or services will be deleted from the site.

I agree with these conditions.

Advertising

Newsletter

Please enter your email to receive our free newsletter

Subscribe to news alerts
loading...

The Guardian Twitter

Advertising