You may remember a considerable uproar about proposed amendments to our zoning bylaws to change the setback areas for ocean shores (Area A only) and riparian areas. A public hearing held July 16 drew a crowd, plus hundreds of written submissions. [Read Coast Reporter article]
Unfortunately thanks to scheduling conflicts, the amendments didn’t come forward for a decision until November 21. [Read Coast Reporter article] And because of the rules around public hearings, the directors were unable to “receive input” (aka discuss) the topic until now.
With the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, this was a less than ideal process. I don’t think the shoreline and riparian amendments should have been combined in one proposal because it just confused everyone. The change to shoreline setbacks only applied to Area A, and only to the ocean, not lakefront properties.
The riparian recommendations were a mix of changes required under BC’s 2016 Water Sustainability Act (which is a confusing piece of legislation all by itself), and additional rules recommended by our staff. And of course we have two zoning bylaws—one for Area A, and another for the rest of the rural areas.
Adding to the general befuddlement is the fact that we have many funky properties on the coast, thanks to the whimsical way the area was originally surveyed, a complex topography, and some colourful history. Some property owners were worried that new rules could be applied retroactively. This is not the case. What applies here is “grandfathering.” If the siting of the home was legal when it was built, it is now legally nonconforming. And there are options open to a property owner even if their house should burn to the ground.
Having heard the concerns of the public, and having consulted our Area Planning Commissions, the directors in the end voted to do two things:
- Increase the ocean setback for Area A from 7.5 metres to 15 m to be consistent with the rest of the coast
- Only enact the riparian amendments required to meet provincial legislation
I think this whole case illustrates the complexity and frustrations of trying to protect our environment (and not cause MORE stormwater problems) without making the rules so difficult and onerous that we penalize property owners who try to follow them.
I also feel that the province needs to revisit the Water Sustainability Act. It was never properly resourced, so applications for water licenses are buried in a seemingly endless queue, and it has opened a Pandora’s box of problems around the definition of riparian areas, effectively handcuffing the ability of both private property owners and government agencies to deal with runoff.
