In what can only be described as a major difference of opinion, city bureaucrats and residents disagree on the right to build housing in city industrial areas, city council heard Monday night.

In a presentation to council, city planning manager Lesley Cabott said several applications to build caretaker's facilities on industrial lots had been turned down recently because they did not meet the criteria under the law.

According to a city administrative report, the five applications for development, in the Mt. Sima-area industrial subdivision, were turned down because they 'fail(ed) to meet the Zoning Bylaw intent for staff accommodation/caretaker facilities as a secondary use.'

Cabott recommended to council that the staff accommodation/caretaker facility provisions in Zone Bylaw 97-42 be eliminated to avoid confusion over what buildings were indeed permitted under the law.

City regulations for accommodation/caretaker facilities state: 'A single staff accommodation/caretaker facility may be permitted where the nature of the business requires 24-hour onsite supervision and a resident caretaker is in the public interest.'

Under the law, a staff accommodation/caretaker facility is defined as: 'A building or portion of a building used to provide onsite accommodation by the employer for person employed on the property, or a residence for the site caretaker.'

Cabott said, 'It (the provisions) are supposed to be for caretakers who look after residences, not for residences (themselves).'

A frustrated Dillion Liard, who purchased one of the lots, voiced his concerns to council. He said his development permit refusal came as a surprise because he'd been assured that his intentions to develop a carpentry facility which included a residence were legal.

'I purchased my lot about a year-and-half ago. Before I purchased the lot, I checked the bylaw and sought advice of the development officer.

'The message that we took away was that our development more than met the bylaw,' Liard said.

He said both he and his girlfriend had spent a year saving money and were again assured by the city that their development proposal could go forward.

He said he needed a residence on site because carpenter's tools are often a target of thieves.

'It was quite a shock when we received a letter saying that (our proposal) was denied,' Liard said.

He said his letter said the size of the proposed residence in his development plan was too big, something he said he doesn't understand.

'It doesn't say anything about size in the bylaw.'

Local potter Lynn Sofiak also voiced concern to council saying she had purchased land with the intent of building a pottery facility with a small residence and that her application too was turned down.

She said she didn't agree with the recommendation to change the bylaw because that would leave people who had purchased land without a permit to develop the land as they had intended.

'If you change the bylaw, what happens to the people who have bought lots?' she asked.

Sofiak said her profession requires the use of potentially hazardous materials and needed constant supervision as stated in the law.

Cabott said nobody who purchased a lot was given assurances that they would be able to build a residence on industrial land because all lots were subject to the permit process in which decisions are made at the end of the process, not during.

She said one development permit had been issued for a caretaker's facility on industrial land but that permit was approved because it was for the use of a caretaker, not a residence.