Zoning Bylaw Changes Opposed

Hearing Addresses Amendments

Public sentiment toward proposed amendments to the Village's Zoning and Development Bylaw was overwhelmingly opposed at last Tuesday's public hearing.

The hearing began Tuesday night in Council Chambers at 8 p.m., after an adjournment paused the regular Council meeting. There were 13 people present in the online gallery, with five residents attending in person.

The formal notice announcing the hearing stated that proposed amendments to the bylaw would revise sections of the Single Detached Residential Zone “to establish a uniform minimum parcel area of 700 m² and remove references to Community Amenity Contributions (CACs)."

In his introduction, Chief Administrative Officer Ross Blackwell said that the proposed amendments are intended to improve clarity, align the bylaw with current planning and legal requirements, and reduce administrative and legal risks associated with CAC-related subdivision provisions.

He reiterated information he had shared at the April 21 Council meeting, noting that subdividing property is also subject to a number of requirements other than lot size.

At the April meeting, Blackwell said that subdivision is a mechanism set out in a number of pieces of legislation, including the Local Government and Land Title Acts.

He noted that in order to subdivide a property, the owner needs to meet local zoning requirements for lot size, as well as a long list of requirements. These include such elements as municipal water and sewer or septic field connections, utilities approvals, a demonstrably viable building envelope, as well as structural and geotechnical specifications, some of which are set out in the subdivision servicing bylaw. He added that if the project faces a specification that can't be solved, the process of subdivision either has to be modified or cannot proceed.

At Tuesday's Public Hearing, Blackwell said that this amendment has been put forward because the current wording is not only difficult to enforce for staff, but illegal.

Prior to the opening of the floor, Mayor Ken Berry said that anyone who feels they might be affected by this amendment had the right to speak, and reminded residents of the five minute time limit. He reiterated that a public hearing is just that, an opportunity for Council to hear public opinions, and that there would be no option to ask questions.

Written submissions were accepted up until the time the hearing closed.

Deputy Corporate Officer Kristal Kenna read the written submissions into the record.

These included former Councillor Norm Barmeier, Val and Stu Morton, Penny Nelson, Brian Hedberg and Bruce and Paula McLaughlin, all of whom either did not support the amendment or requested it be deferred until after the Official Community Plan (OCP) process has been undertaken.

Resident Alison Dudley wrote in support of the bylaw amendment.

In-person speakers included Michael Goldstein and Dierdre Bain, both of whom were opposed to the amendment. Bain presented a letter penned by former Councillor Marcus Reuter and signed by 59 community members asking that the amendment be delayed until after the OCP process.

The letter suggested the "wise, reasonable and prudent thing to do is to defer zoning changes until after community consultation has taken place during the Official Community Plan review," and, in light of the Battani Creek disaster, emphasized the need for careful consideration of how development occurs in hazardous areas. Signatories are residents from throughout Lions Bay neighbourhoods including the central Village, Kelvin Grove and Brunswick Beach.

On-line, residents Carmon Leeson, Tamara Leger and Jerry Blackwell (who clarified he is no relation to the CAO) all spoke against the amendment.

After the meeting, CAO Ross Blackwell told The Watershed the letter presented by Dierdre Bain will not form a part of the official record. "There's no way to know who put those signatures on the letter," he said. "To be considered, each person has to submit their name and address in person or by mail or email."

When asked for comment, Reuter —who wrote the letter presented by Bain— expressed his disappointment, but noted that "the decision as to whether they wish to listen to the voices of so many residents lies solely with each member of Council."

"We signed the letter in good faith and believed our submissions would be included in the record of the hearing and be heard, and they should be. It’s Council’s duty to listen to residents and reflect the will of the community. Our wishes —not staff’s— should guide the decisions of our elected representatives," Reuter said.

Council is expected to make a decision on the passage of the amendment at the next Council meeting, scheduled for June 16.

The Watershed welcomes your thoughts.

Leave your comments below,

or email us at editor@lionsbaywatershed.ca 

Like what you're reading?

For as little as $5/month, you can support local independent journalism

by subscribing to The Watershed HERE.