Regina council delays final vote on proposed parking lot after finding out people are already parking there

A dirt lot in Regina's downtown sparkedfrustration and outrage at Wednesday's city council meeting after it was revealedthat a company may have circumvented the will of council.

The lots located at2158 and 2160 Scarth Street were once two unused homes. But as of Wednesday morning the homes were gone andan empty lot was leftin their place.

Council was set to vote Wednesday afternoon onbylaw amendments that would allowthe property to be converted intoa parking lot.

However, it was revealed in the meeting that cars were already parking there.

"The democratic roleof council has been short circuited by this process," said Coun. Bob Hawkins.

Circumventing council

The initialapplication to turn the space intoa surface parking lotof 13paved stalls sailed through council in July with a vote of 6-3.

The proposed lot would not be open to the public, but would serve as a private lot for anoffice building on Scarth Street.

However, thenumbered company that owns the lots, 628470Saskatchewan Ltd., was supposed to wait for final approval on a series of zoning bylaw amendments before creating a parking lot, city administration told council on Wednesday.

The numbered company is owned by Gordon Hipperson, according to the Saskatchewan Corporate Registry.

The bylaw amendments looked likely to pass all three readings as required until Anna Norris, a Regina resident, took council to task for what she saw as a failure to remain committed to its goals of creating a livable downtown.

"We know that surface parking is actively harmful to people, communities and to the climate," said Norris.

Norris said people were already parking in the space, meaning council's vote was meaningless.

"We know that the project has already proceeded under the assumption that today's activities are merely a formality. But the bylaw has not been passed, and this is only a formality if we choose to make it one."

Her comments appeared to change the mind of some councillors, who took time to ask pointed question of city administration over why this space was already being used as a parking lot.

The destruction of the two homes was separate from the bylaw amendments, administration said, meaning the owner of the lot did not need to seek permission from council to destroy the buildings.

However, any use of the space as a parking lot should still be contingent on city council passing the bylaw amendments.

A 'loophole'

Hawkins described the action as a "loophole" that administration should've been aware of and taken action on.

Coun. Andrew Stevens agreed with Norris, saying that the creation of a parking lot did not appear to align with existing bylaws.

"I think we should... stand pretty firmly on this issue and stop recommending the approval of these kind of initiatives," Stevens said.

Although the first reading of the bylaw amendments passed 8-1, the responses from city administration resulted in a 5-4 vote on the second reading.

An attempt to read the bylaw changes a third time failed 5-4. Support would've had to be unanimous in order to proceed.

Couns. Hawkins,Stevens,CherylStadnichuk and Shanon Zachidniakwere the votes against.

Now council must do anotherreading and final vote that, if passed, would result in the amendments becoming law.

That vote will likely come in September when council reconvenes after a two-week break.