December 10th, 1973. aa . [5

Whiting stated she felt the Council was not accepting | its responsibility and urged -
Day Care be allowed where any facilities can be found,

Nrs. PLL. Singbeil, 2121 Audrey Drive, spoke against the propesed By-law, sta~
ting she way not in favour of the institutionalization of children, and pointed out
that when a child, particularly one of pre~school age, loses both parents through
their having to work, emotional problens frequently develop;whereas small group day
care in private houses provide children with a "second home!’ environment,

Mr. Murray Stark, Day Care Organizer in Coquitlam, spoke in favour of the By-
daw and pointed out that some parents prefer their children to be in larger group.
day care centres while others prefer them to be in a family home Setting.

Mr. P.C. Hudson, 3475 Vincent Streez, stated his view that family day care
is a home occupation and at this moment home oce"ipations are not allowed in Port —
Coquitlam; further, that there are no plans at present to have a By-law in this
City regulating home occupations. Mr. Hudson commented that if Day Care is appro-
ved, the Council will have te make provision for regulating other home occupations,

uch as home representatives, sales persons, etc., which are carried on at the pre-
sent time in contravention to the ky~law.

Mrs. L. Dubois, 1341 Vivian Place, spoke against the second proposal, stating
she understood the first By-law provided for the care of a larger group of child-
“ren in private homes and that she did not understand what reason there could be
for back-tracking and putting these larger groups in schools or churches. Nrs.
Dubois pointed out that according to findings in Vancouver and New Westminster,
Day Care within private homes is still the ideal location and Stated she hoped the
Council would go back to Residential Group Day Care.

Alderman Ranger stated he had initiated the concept of Day Care back in Ma
of this year, publishing information in the City's Newsletter and in local. news-
papers, and that the original By-law was drawn up as a result of several meetings;
however, at the Public Hearing subsequently held, the By-law was "shot down", and
expressed the view that the second proposal is a poor compromise, Aldermaa Meyer
pointed out that although larger groups could be accommodated in vrivate hones lf
the properties are rezoned for such use, the community climate is not ready to
accept this at the present time. Alderman ever further commented that one must

Gyictine things by what is possible.,.and what is possible at the present time is
the proposed By-law. His Worship tne Mayor advised that the By-law has had two
readings and that it can receive third reading later this eveniug.

His Worship the Mayor declared the Public Hearing adjourned at 8: 00 Pe m., and

the regular Council meeting was then called ty order,