Council pushes off Aurora decision to October

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 24/08/2023 (1133 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

Brandon City Council punted on making a decision about the future of the Aurora Family Reunification Centre until October, following an intense debate on Monday night.

The former motel has been operating for months as a facility designed to help women who have received treatment for addictions reunite with their children and help them transition to living on their own. The facility has been seeking a zoning variance, which had been denied by the planning commission, to allow it to continue.

Much of the council discussion centred on how similar Aurora was or was not to a hotel and whether it was suitable for a predominantly commercial part of the city.

Coun. Kris Desjarlais (Ward 2), the only councillor in support of an initial motion approving the variance with the conditions suggested by the planning department, said that the debate was focusing on the wrong issues.

“I think we’re getting caught up on the definition of whether it’s a motel rather than what planning was trying to do, which was trying to bring a viable business in the community and turn a dilapidated motel into something that’s a bit viable and address a need not just in our community but … in our province and our surrounding communities,” he said. “Whether we like it or not, it’s a service hub and there are always going to be individuals that come to Brandon to access supports.”

Aurora does not serve just those who received treatment at its sister location in Gimli, but anyone who has received treatment and has demonstrated stability in their recovery, said manager Chantal Klainchair and child and family services liaison Lorraine Messing.

Facility a ‘vital service’

The non-permanent nature of the stays, they argued, is why Aurora’s Brandon location doesn’t significantly differ from its former function as a temporary living facility or motel. Providing with the community with a “vital service” and positively affecting the surrounding areas through gentrification, Klainchar said, means operations of the facility won’t be any more harmful to the health of people in the area than the former motel was.

“Since beginning operations, we have heard about the stigma that has been attached to the former Redwood Inn as a hub for drug use and criminal activity,” Klainchar said. “We feel that this stigma may have an impact on the public’s ability to envision this facility as now being a place of healing … however the perception that a place once associated with darkness cannot serve as a source of light for people in need is not only short-sighted but detrimental to the families we serve and the greater community.”

They said they had two letters from adjacent property owners — Crane Steel and Precision Toyota — stating that Aurora’s presence has improved the area.

Brandon’s director of planning and buildings, Ryan Nickel, said that his department is trying to make the facility work given a need for those kind of services in the community. However, he said that when the city was first approached by Aurora his department was unsure of how to classify it because it’s a use case they’ve never seen before. His direction to staff was to find a process where the city could approve it.

City trying to make it work

“In their (Aurora’s) experience, it classified for these kinds of uses under a hotel or motel use,” Nickel said. “We were somewhat hesitant to that, but then we had a discussion and it went from ‘is this a treatment centre,’ which it’s not, to ‘is this just a hotel where people are coming and staying for transitional periods?’ We don’t regulate who can stay in hotels.”

Staff’s recommendation brought to Monday’s meeting was that Aurora’s variance be granted under the condition that it implements a site plan presented to the city that would commit to amenities like planters boxes, a playground, basketball court, soccer pitch and a bonfire area being built within one-year, as well as a condition that the province confirm a provincial license is not needed for it to operate.

One of the site plan elements, an eight-foot-high fence on the facility’s edge, has already been installed.

Cheryl Davis, an Aurora employee who said she worked for the Redwood Inn since 2011 before new ownership took over, said she does not feel the same stress since the changeover and that frequent police visits have ceased. She said she’s been told by clients they wouldn’t be with their children without the facility.

When it came time for owner Michael Bruneau to speak in defence of his facility, he said it has been “working better than the CFS system, as far as we can see.”

“It would be nice if we felt welcome,” Bruneau said. “Most towns — Dauphin, Thompson — they’re begging us to come. But here, I almost feel that we’re not wanted.”

The reason the facility is open and operating, he said, is because the city gave him the green light. He wouldn’t have purchased the motel if he’d known it would lead “to what’s happening right now.”

Concerns remain for John Howard Society

However, not all of the 30 people in attendence at the meeting were sold on the variance.

At last month’s planning committee meeting, John Howard Society of Brandon executive director Ross Robinson argued against the variance being granted in part because of its proximity to a nearby transitional housing project his organization is developing.

On Monday, Robinson said he had met with Bruneau once since the planning commission hearing. He said one of his concerns regarding access to locks had been allayed, and that he was glad to see a fence had been installed. And while he said that he had developed a greater understanding of the facility, he had some unresolved concerns.

“Originally described to city planners as transient housing to reunite families, according to Mike, the current service they’re offering and have expanded since being denied by your planning commission, is focused on customers drawn from across the Prairies, not Brandon,” he said.

The business plan, Robinson said, involves stays of greater than 12 months, counselling and programming being offered to customers and connecting those customers with non-profits in Brandon.

While he acknowledged that Bruneau’s program is appropriate for his customers and that he would likely be supportive, Robinson expressed doubt that its operations were similar to a motel and reminded councillors that buildings in commercial arterial zones are not supposed to feature first-floor dwellings.

Robinson denied the claim that Aurora would be similar to his own organization’s transitional housing project, because it was rezoned as institutional or educational from being industrial. It was never zoned as commercial, unlike Aurora.

His final argument was that the facility was unsuited to its intended purpose, being located on Brandon’s busiest north-south road, with no greenspace or dedicated play area and originally being built for shorter-term stays.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, Robinson said he was involved with the effort to administer tests to people experiencing homelessness at the hotel and has first-hand experience with the shortcomings of the rooms.

“I understand Mike has plans to convert this space and make it better for his customers, but for now I believe people will be spending 12 to 18 months in a small hotel room,” Robinson said.

He expressed hope the facility could shake its reputation as a facility where “predominantly Indigenous women were monetized and victimized” — but not at the expense of vulnerable people.

Council defers decision, sets 2nd public hearing

Desjarlais argued that the transformation of the former motel could be a model Brandon uses going forward to salvage similar facilities in decay, such as the now-demolished Casa Blanca Motor Lodge on the west end of Victoria Avenue.

Coun. Bruce Luebke (Ward 6) said he agreed with almost everything Desjarlais said, but he couldn’t support the motion because in his mind the facility represented special needs housing, which is not allowed in commercial arterial zones.

The elected representative for the facility’s ward, Coun. Heather Karrouze (Ward 1), said she recognizes the “profound brokenness” experienced by parents separated from their children and the need in the community for these services, but agreed with Luebke’s land use argument.

Councillors Glen Parker (Ward 9) and Shawn Berry (Ward 7) successfully proposed and amended a motion to have the decision deferred to the Oct. 3 city council meeting, when a second public hearing will also be held.

Though Parker said he was not a huge fan of delaying decisions, he said he wanted more information to make a proper decision. He also wondered if there were any comparable facilities in other jurisdictions that could be studied.

Because council had already voted to conclude the public hearing, no new information would be able to be presented without a second hearing.

Should council eventually reject the variance, Nickel said the city would figure out a timeline for the closure of the facility that would be least injurious to its clients. Until then, no one would be removed from the facility.

» cslark@brandonsun.com

» X: @ColinSlark