A packed city council chambers quickly became close to empty Monday night following the rare move of council in voting 5-1 to delay a public hearing on the proposed new zoning bylaw.

Coun. Dave Stockdale was the lone vote against deferring the hearing, with Coun. Dave Austin absent from the meeting.

'We need some careful deliberations on this,' Coun. Bev Buckway said in responding to the motion of deferral by Coun. Doug Graham.

Approximately 100 people jammed the chambers at city hall, where extra chairs had been placed against a side wall for the large crowd. Those who couldn't find seats were left standing in the back.

Just inside the door of city hall, Christine O'Connor of council services was on hand to gather a list of residents planning to speak at the hearing because of the large crowd expected.

This morning, she said 23 names were on the list by the time the 7:30 p.m. meeting began.

Just before it started, Graham made his motion to defer the hearing, which is part of the bylaw adoption process.

Normally, after first reading is passed, a public hearing is scheduled for input. From there, a report is brought forward by city staff to council with potential amendments prior to second and third readings.

In presenting his motion, Graham said the chance to do some good with zoning in the city through the bylaw is 'rapidly slipping away.

'We can see by the number of people that are here this evening that there's a great deal of interest in this zoning bylaw. Whether that's a positive interest or a negative is immaterial, really, to me, but it's the fact people have become involved in the process and that's what's a positive, good thing.'

The zoning bylaw is being written to reflect the Official Community Plan (OCP) adopted in 2002.

Among the many changes are rezoning areas of the Porter Creek, Takhini North and Riverdale neighbourhoods to allow for infill. That means permitting residential housing in already-established neighbourhoods.

In Riverdale, that would mean rezoning a site from parks and recreation to residential single-detached (RS), while in Porter Creek and Takhini North, the area up for rezoning to RS is currently future development (FD).

The proposals have been met with opposition from residents of the areas at various meetings. Many are opposed to having the sites heavily used as greenbelt rezoned.

Graham explained he wanted the city to take the time to revisit some of the more controversial parts of the proposed bylaw to come up with changes that would be better accepted by residents but still get those things that needed to be done completed.

'I think that if we can make some changes and then go and consult these people that we'll have a much more meaningful and much more well-accepted zoning bylaw,' Graham told the crowd.

Although Coun. Mel Stehelin voted in favour of the deferral, he said there is a need for more lots and housing in the city.

Before her vote in favour of deferring, Buckway thanked everyone for coming out. She said council has realized there's more work to do on the proposal so that concerns can be alleviated.

Another concern for Buckway is the focus that has been given to green spaces in the city. There's a number of other changes proposed in the regulations as well, he said.

'I've certainly heard from people,' said Coun. Jan Stick. 'And I don't want to see it going ahead as it is.'

The deferral will give the city an opportunity to get together with community associations around the city and do some careful planning.

'I believe there are major flaws with this proposed bylaw,' Mayor Ernie Bourassa said.

Alternatives to the current proposals should be brought forward prior to second reading so the community can be assured the city is listening, he said.

'We've all heard quite loudly, quite clearly and quite fiercely what the community wants,' he said. 'And they don't want this bylaw.'

The mayor said there are parts of the bylaw he vehemently disagrees with. He would rather bring the bylaw back to council and the planning department before going to the public with the changes.

Stockdale suggested the city should hear from those who took the time to attend the meeting.

'First of all, it's the first time I've heard about it (Graham's motion),' he said. 'I don't like being surprised like this when you come to a meeting and we've called all these people out here to give their opinions on something.'

Some may be approaching council for the first time, he said, suggesting such a decision should have been made a week ago.

'I don't think it's fair not to have this public (hearing),' he said to applause from the gallery.

He pointed to feasibility studies made on the infill that council hadn't yet seen.

After the meeting, Graham said he hadn't heard about the studies before last Thursday. They are another item that made him uncomfortable with the situation, he said.

'If we had those things, then we should have given them to people,' he said. 'Well, we should have got a look at them, I guess first, to say whether or not we like them. And secondly, we should have been prepared to give those drafts to people if we agreed with them.'

Not having seen them, Graham said he's unsure whether he'd endorse them.

Earlier in the meeting, he replied to Stockale's surprise by noting if Stockdale had arrived at the 7:30 p.m. meeting prior to 7:28 p.m., Graham could have informed him about the motion coming forward.

'The fact remains, there's a great deal of misinformation out there,' Graham said. 'There's also a great deal that I've heard from individuals that makes sense to me, that I think should be incorporated into that bylaw.'

A round of applause again sprang up from the gallery when Graham suggested as the proposal reads now, it's not a good bylaw.

'I think we have to bring it back and get it on track,' Graham said before he and Buckway displayed a photo of the city taken from the air which showed the green areas around town.

Though most comments made at public meetings held over the last few weeks have been against the infill scheme, Graham said he's also heard from residents who want lots in places like Porter Creek.

'We have to balance those things,' he said.

Approximately 65 to 70 per cent of the residents he's heard from are against the bylaw.

One of the main points which came across to council, Graham suggested, is that the process for the bylaw wasn't good.

'And we have to revisit that and we have to fix it,' he said.

Having no draft of what's planned for a neighbourhood can breed misinformation such as the rumour that duplexes are to be developed in Riverdale, Graham suggested.

'We have make sure that people understand what we want to do so that kind of thing can't happen in the future,' he said.

Council will likely meet with the city's planning department with further direction on where to go from here, Graham said.

The bylaw was prepared by city planners.

'The planning department has done what they've done because of directions they received from council,' he said. 'And maybe ... we haven't understood our role perhaps as well as we should of.'

It's a problem that was created by council when the OCP which advised infill was adopted. There was no further direction offered by council after that, he noted.

'That's something we have to fix,' he said.