OCP amending Bylaw #357 will be the subject of a BIM open house on July 21st. Last week’s Undercurrent featured an article the topic with the APC Chair, Drew Rose, portraying the proposed changes as “clearing up terminology, eliminating redundancy, housekeeping,” all to “throw the island into a more positive light in terms of economic development.”
But while the intent is laudable, these changes would not be a simple, benign tweaking. They could quite fundamentally alter the way Bowen presents its aspirations and values.
The Islands Trust Object, the oft-repeated “Preserve and Protect” mandate under which we operate. The meaning of the Object is explained as:
The needs of present and future residents... can only be met and sustained within the limits of the natural environment...
That is why our 2011 OCP states, as one of the twelve Fundamental Goals: “To manage growth in a way that is conditioned by the natural environment and respects social and economic diversity.”
But the Economic Development Committee didn’t like that wording, and has recommended deleting of those words and instead making it so growth would ‘respect social and economic diversity, and the natural and built environments.’
No big deal, one might say, yet looking up the definition for ‘conditioned by’ yields phrases as ‘must exist before something else is brought about’, and ‘determine the manner or outcome of something’. Essentially this signals the primacy of the natural environment. This is not just a simple word massage, but downgrading the importance of the environment. It runs counter to the Trust’s fundamental tenet.
There are other significant changes: if amendments are adopted there will no longer be any constraints on the size or type of overnight accommodations, rather than the current panoply of categories, from B&B’s to Small Inns.
Another change is the elimination to OCP caveats on light industrial activity. Nuisances such as noise, dust or glare, or to provide visual screening would be handled under the Land Use Bylaw, but it leaves a big regulatory hole.
Next is tossing the concept of ‘island character’ as being too difficult to define. Doesn’t being an island define the fundamental character of our community?
Then there is the lifting of strictures against RV camping. Of course re-zonings would be required, but why would we want RV Parks- catering to a class of visitor notorious for being cocooned and not spending a dime in the community.
The biggest questions are around propriety and process. Why bring forth changes crafted by an economic development committee to alleviate a perceived but non-existent problem? Not a single commercial project has failed to get going in the Cove because of our OCP wording. We normally change OCP’s through a community process with professional review, and not just at the behest of a small, narrowly focused committee.
It remains to be seen whether there will be good public discussion around this bylaw amendment, but I can think of several far more important imperatives to take up Council’s limited time and budget.
