Port Harvey Marine Industrial Zoning Hearing Report 7/2017

H

hardee

New member
Port Harvey Marine Industrial Zoning Hearing Report


I just returned home from Vancouver Island, and from some cruising in Desolation Sound and the Powell River CBGT. It was a short trip this summer, but hopefully not the only one.

One of the objectives of this trip was to attend a government hearing in Port McNiell, regarding land use in Port Harvey. This is a proposal for a change in zoning of property next to the Port Harvey Marine Resort, and would have pretty huge impact on “resort life” in the Port Harvey area. The area is currently zoned as Rural, and the change request is to make it a Marine Industrial area, allowing repair and demolishing of vessels up to 300 feet on a marine way (railway) and to accommodate a barge storage dock of 600 feet, which could hold up to 600 feet of barge on either side of the dock, effectively blocking off 250 to 300 feet of the 900 foot entrance to Port Harvey Marine Resort. There would also be the issues of environmental pollution, both aquatic, land, and sound (think air hammers on steel), 12 to 16 hours a day.

There were 28 representatives of the public, and 10 of government officials there. There were 3 in support of the Buttle Organization (Pacificus), 2 of which were in his employment, (a Director of Operation and a Biologist), and the room was full, actually packed. There were, among others, 2 physicians, one planning on building a retirement home across the bay, on Misty Island, from what was becoming Mike Buttles demolition yard; a retired Geologist, with concerns about the environmental status resulting from the pollution of a demolition yard; a retired RCMP officer with concerns about the track record of the Buttle industry;, several recreational boaters from the US with concerns about coming in to the marina and having to deal with the noise and the loss of anchoring space; one with a concern and example of the Buttle approach to visiting recreational boaters, (harassing to the point of endangerment); and then the owners, (George and Gail Cambridge), of Port Harvey Marine Resort, with concern for both their business future and the value of their property changing from rural resort level to industrial neighbors.

There were 65 written statements provided to the board directors, plus the statements of the 25 public representatives, who each had a chance to speak at least twice, or a third time if wanted. The meeting lasted nearly 3 hours, which may have been close to a record as was the public response demonstrated by attendance. There was also a reporter from a local paper, the Eagle, the North Island news paper representing Port McNeill and Port Hardy.

The hearing board has until Aug 15 to study the notes, and consider, and then there will be another meeting where they will have a public discussion and a decision will be announced. There are 4 possibilities: 1. To deny the application, 2. Table the decision pending further investigation, 3. To proceed with the application but with conditions that they stipulate, or to 4. Adopt the request for rezoning as requested.


There were several requests by those in attendance for the board to actually visit the site under consideration, as only one of the 8 members had actually been at the Port Harvey site. One of the supporters, a local marine taxi operator offered to take the entire board to the site for a visit prior to their next meeting which will be decision time.

I know, for many of us that cruise north in the summer months, that many go into Port Harvey Marine Resort. Many have enjoyed the quiet anchorage or economical and friendly dock space, and the Pizza, fish and chips, pizzza, and cinni buns available. George and Gail have been at the Seattle Boat show and have made friends throughout the boating community. Your support is appreciated by them and as they have been rebuilding from the barge sinking a couple of years ago now, they are still in recovery mode. Stopping by for dock space and pizza is a great way to say thanks and meet new friends.

For disclosure, I share interest in Port Harvey, only in that we share the same name, and no financial connection. I do hope they are able to continue in the rebuild and in suppressing the industrial development attempt.

Please see these other threads for more Port Harvey Marine Resort information.

Broughtons Summer of 2017
http://www.c-brats.com/viewtopic.php?t= ... ine+resort

Port Harvey Marine “Setback”
http://www.c-brats.com/viewtopic.php?t= ... ine+resort

Port Harvey Request
http://www.c-brats.com/viewtopic.php?t= ... ine+resort

Thanks you for your interest.

Harvey
SleepyC:moon

JC_Lately_SleepyC_Flat_Blue_070.thumb.jpg
 
Thanks Rob. Agree, hopefully those making the decisios will abide by their own bylaws that say any new use must be compatible with existing resident uses, and Fisheries designations.

Harvey
SleepyC :moon
 
Anyone thinking of being in the north island area, (Port McNiel, Telegraph Cove, Alert Bay, Sointula or Malcolm Island, Port Hardy, Etc.) might think about being in Port McNiel for the decision meeting for that planning/zoning commission. They will discuss their requirements, bylaws and then the deciding factors and then cast their vote for one of the following 4 choices.

The 4 possibilities: 1. To deny the application, 2. Table the decision pending further investigation, 3. To proceed with the application but with conditions that they stipulate, or to 4. Adopt the request for rezoning as requested.

It may be a longer meeting, and probably start around 1 PM. From what was said at the previous meeting, it might be better for the Port Harvey folks if there was some interest shown on their behalf. There are no speeches required, just listen and show support.

Harvey
SleepyC :moon

JC_Lately_SleepyC_Flat_Blue_070.thumb.jpg
 
It is hard to say Andy, but the public support sure was weighted for the Port Harvey side. The commissioners were very stoic and poker faced, but one of them suggested that it would be a good idea for some representation to be there at the decision meeting. She was one who was friendly to one of the MD's who were there and presented some very compelling argumentation for denying the rezoning to industrial. She also made an agreeing motion when it was suggested that the group should actually see the area in question in person.

There were several of the commissioners who seemed to agree with the idea of a personal visit, but they did not take that to a vote so don't know if they well go for sure or not. Even if they go, it does not mean that they will vote in favor of Port Harvey.

We just need to support (and show up if possible) for the upcoming meeting Aug 15, unless it is rescheduled -- but not likely that would happen.

Harvey
SleepyC :moon

1_10_2012_from_Canon_961.highlight.jpg
 
I did a little snooping around on the internet. Found this quote from a 2014 paper done on Bear Cove recreation and launching facility. The same environmental group was involved (hired guns in environmental studies are common). Pacificus Biological Services is a large environmental group for hire on the upper BC coast.

Pier Construction
One of the initial construction issues with the project was how to construct the pier footings and launch the pier. The locations of the footings can only be accessed during very low tides that did not necessarily align with the work schedule. Creativity shown by the District and Mike Buttle of Mike Buttle Services Ltd. solved the problem.
The unique “Buttle Shuttle” which is part ferry and part landing craft made the site preparation and construction of the pier feasible. The Buttle Shuttle is an ideal work platform with enough room to transport people and equipment to remote and hard to access work sites. The Buttle Shuttle was indispensable in every aspect of the pier construction and the majority of float work undertaken onsite.
Click to expand...

Note that Mike Buttle has a history of working with the harbor district--and apparently is an insider up there. There are articles about working with fish farms, etc. Also there is a "Buttle" lake ---makes me thing the family goes way back.

Bottom line, having dealt with some similar issues in other areas, that there may already be a streamlined line to passage, despite the lip service and public meetings. One similar issue we have dealt with is an "Auto Shred"--yep they feed this fire belching machine whole cars, and if a gas tank is not completely drained there is a small explosion just part of the process. (any metal scrap is used) Then this metal is sorted by magnetic and non magnetic, finally thru conveyor belts into hopper barges which then take it down the ICW to New Orleans, and it is loaded into bulk carriers to go to China--to make new cars. The point being, is that the contamination you will find from blasting barges is going to be very similar to what we have seen with the Auto Shred (and one of the reasons I moved my place of abode to a different part of Pensacola.) I know the story well--public meetings on permits, nodding of heads, "tut tut, we should not allow that".....and then the permit is re-approved. I am not saying that is what will happen in Port Hardy, but I have seen similar scenarios happen. I agree that the blasting of barges, is gong to mean that every drop of water used, must be sent thru water filters, oil separators and should be purer than rain, when it is discharged into the bay...but will it? Will the equipment be maintained?

It sounds to me as if this guy is being given a blank check--what have they presented with plans for this terminal? Is there an opposing biologist or lawyer representing the people? Final reading? Comments are closed? Watch out. I hope the good guys win....I really do.
 
Bob Austin said (in part):
".... I agree that the blasting of barges, is going to mean that every drop of water used, must be sent thru water filters, oil separators and should be purer than rain, when it is discharged into the bay...but will it? Will the equipment be maintained?

It sounds to me as if this guy is being given a blank check--what have they presented with plans for this terminal? Is there an opposing biologist or lawyer representing the people? Final reading? Comments are closed? Watch out. I hope the good guys win....I really do."

The reality is that:
1. There is an existing bylaw stipulating that any new use must be compatible with current existing uses.
2.
 
Bob Austin said (in part):
".... I agree that the blasting of barges, is going to mean that every drop of water used, must be sent thru water filters, oil separators and should be purer than rain, when it is discharged into the bay...but will it? Will the equipment be maintained?

It sounds to me as if this guy is being given a blank check--what have they presented with plans for this terminal? Is there an opposing biologist or lawyer representing the people? Final reading? Comments are closed? Watch out. I hope the good guys win....I really do."
Click to expand...

The reality is that:
1. There is an existing bylaw stipulating that any new use must be compatible with current existing uses.
2. Mike Buttle has a track record of 15 years of saying he will do something and then skirting the regulations or ignoring them and doing whatever he can get away with. (Currently there is logging going on, buldozing down to the fore shore, salvage operations and derelect vehicles and vessels showing on the property.) None of this is allowed by current use permit.
3. I believe there has been a lawyer involed at some point, but not at the actual commission meetings. There was not a professional biologist or provincial fish and game agent there.
4. Specifics for water use, filtering and contaminate holding and export, or neutralizing have not been submited with or prior to the application to change the zone permit to industrial. Nor have there been any addressing of environmental impact on wildlife, sea mammals, shell fish except that "he" says that will all be taken care of in a "safe and responsible way".
5. He is (has) a barge for living quarters there already, for 20 plus people, with a full time kitchen. There is no permit for that and no provision for potable water for that or for "used" water or refuse disposal or purification. It is just being dumped into the bay.

He is far enough off the beaten path that no o e is going to go and check up one him, or enforce that he meet any stipulations. I do hope the commisioners will actually go out and visit the site before they have to come to a decision.

Bob, I hope you are wrong about the fast tracking but Buttle has spent a fair amount of money there, and does regular business with the local First Nations people, who are supporting him and his application for the zoning change. The vite could certainly go either way.

Some of that support has to do with a true need for a large vessel service point somewhere north of Vancouver BC, and no one at the meeting denied that need. But, there were several who brought up alternative places for the marine service, and some who pointed directly at the commission and showed their responsibility to help direct Buttle to an appropriate location, One of which was a closed mill yard right there in Port McNeil.

Again, I have no financial interest in Port Harvey and the only gain would be for a quiet and peaceful anchorage to remain as such.

Harvey
SleepyC :moon
 
One of the prices we have to pay here in Kitsap County for our naval presence which provides 25,000 plus good paying jobs is, get this, Bangor Submarine base does not want industrial presence, activity, and noise disturbing the quietness of the Hood Canal. Downtown no high buildings looking into certain parts of the shipyard. The Navy and the environmentalists have developed a really strong alliance.
 
The 'haulout' proposed by Buttle is not hauling the barges up onto land. It will be concrete piers from the beach into the water. The barges will be floated over the piers at high tide and grounded on the piers at low tide.

The barges will be pressure washed and repaired directly over the salt water, with all debris washed directly into the water.

Buttle already pressure washes his ferry/workboat while it is beached.

This location is remote from town where the 'authorities' will not be looking at or checking up on his activities.
 
The barges will be pressure washed and repaired directly over the salt water, with all debris washed directly into the water.
Click to expand...

Today's tides are only about 2 meters, and the highest range, is close to 4 meters, but only a few days. I don't know the unladen draft of the barges, but with a 2 meter tide, this would give very little work time or space. (assumption draft is one meter)?? unless the barges are truly hauled into dry land.

The 'haulout' proposed by Buttle is not hauling the barges up onto land. It will be concrete piers from the beach into the water. The barges will be floated over the piers at high tide and grounded on the piers at low tide.
Click to expand...

The Port Harvey resort states:

.
I have attached two pictures from our dock of where he will be building a marine railway to take up to 300 foot barges out of the water to hydo blast the barges creating many environmental concerns and the noise will be horrendous. The plan is one barge per week and will be moved at all hours of the day or night.
Click to expand...

I did find the application on line here

The landing will be lined with an impermeable membrane and drain to a lined perimeter drain that leads to a containment sump to ensure contaminants are captured and prevented from entering the marine environment. Specially designed low profile rail cars will travel the rails allowing for barges to be winched up out of the water.
Improvements within the intertidal zone will consist of twelve gently sloping (<5%) concrete slabs which are 30cm thick, 5.2m wide and extending 82m (approximately 40m above the high water mark and 42m through the intertidal zone). These slabs will extend from approximately the low water level (Chart Datum) through the intertidal zone maintaining the slope through the foreshore, similar to a boat ramp. On the concrete slabs, rails will be placed which run the length of the concrete slabs. No development is expected to occur within the subtidal zone except for the placement of a few anchors.
Click to expand...

The report does note that there is no facility for sewage disposal, or for potable water (which will have to be developed). There is no specific as to how the contaminates are going to be treated or disposed of. This application has been in the hopper for over a year and a half, and probably considerably longer.
 
Bob,

I stand corrected on the function of the piers. I had not heard about the rails and cars. That does seem like a marine railway.

I noticed that the barges will be 'up to 300ft--91meters long', but the slabs are only 82 meters, of which 42 meters are below the high water mark. Unless this railway is a lot longer than the slabs, it would not be possible to get the entire barge out of the intertidal zone.

Even if they contain the debris, will they pay to store and haul it out by barge? Not sure where the nearest hazardous waste dump is located, but it would involve transport by barge and then trans-loading to trucks to haul to the dump. What happens to all the dust when they are sandblasting?

Having seen this mans operation several times over several years, my opinion is that he only does the 'right thing' if he is forced to. As I recall, one year, he (Buttle) was disposing of old fish farm docks on a barge anchored near the marina. The foam flotation was allowed to blow off the barge and float away in the water. A yachtie complained to the Dept of Ecology who forced Buttle to clean up that operation. He then moved his work barge around behind an island to get it out of sight of visiting boats.

This whole proposed development is on an island with a few houses, two marinas, and no public utilities or infrastructure. The island is mostly a cedar and fir forest.

All in all, in my opinion, this is the wrong kind of development for this area.
 
All in all, in my opinion, this is the wrong kind of development for this area.
Click to expand...

I suspect that a lot of us feel that way. I don't remember much about the cove, but enjoyed my visit to the barge/docks several times on our trips up and down the inland passage 20+ years ago. Excellent point on the length of the rails/vs size of the barges. We can only guess where a\ny pollutants which are trapped, if they are, will go. A lot of forrest nearby....With logging roads already in place.

Looking even the very low resolution photos on Google Earth, it looks like a junk yard where his current operation is. Since none of us lives there our opinions don't carry any weight..
 
thataway":1o3h2bl9 said:
Since none of us lives there our opinions don't carry any weight..
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

For sure, the only weight we can swing is the weight of foreign tourist dollars. Tourist dollars do mean something in that area, but is that enough? We will just have to wait for the decision.
 
Quote from the planning analysis: "The owners advise that marine industrial activities have been historically undertaken on the subject property and adjacent marine areas. These uses are not currently permitted by the applicable zoning"

Wow! So the owner/operator is admitting he has been historically violating the law, and now wants to permit, and expand his present illegal industrial activities? Sounds more like the same fox is asking to guard a larger hen house? :roll:
 
Interesting discussion, and a situation similar to others in BC.

My Canadian buddies tell me that aggressive criticism from the US is often counterproductive ... you all understand the history for that.

Better to channel support, in words or funds, through a Canadian pressure group.

I have a longstanding friendship with an outfitter centered near the Broughtons, on Guilford, who is my route. I suspect Pierre at Echo Bay might be another route to pursue. He will know groups over on/near Cracroft to contact.

Environmental issues often are resolved via back room deals in BC, in my experience.
 
The Google Earth photos are several years old. Much of Buttles property has been clear cut over the last 2 years.

Yes he admits to exceeding his current permit specs, but says he is catching all that up now and wants to make that "legal or legitimate" now.

Yes the whole thing is a mess, but we can thank, in part, the regulatory agencys who provided the use permit and then did no follow up "policing" that use.

Both Port Harvey Marine Resort and the owner of Misty Island who wants to build a retirement home there have been coninuously hassled about their permits and use since they started there. (Building a dock, fore beach use, every step necessary for progress they have tried to do, they have had to do in micro steps.)

Just hoping for a sensibly decided outcome.

Harvey
SleepyC :moon
 
Back
Top