DEAR EDITOR:
The following is an edited letter to Bowen Island Municipality’s CAO and shared with the Undercurrent:
This is a follow-up to the July 12 Public Hearing for the Land Use Amendment Bylaw. As was stated at the end of the public hearing, discussions on the matter between the public and Mayor and council are now closed, however discussions between the public and muni staff can continue, so we decided to take this opportunity to reach out to you.
As we understand the process, a report on the results of the public hearing is to be completed and will include recommendations on how best to move forward to Mayor and council and will be presented at the council meeting scheduled for Sept. 27.
Based on the wide range of vocal opposition and very good points presented at the public hearing, we recommend BIM re-draft parts of the Land Use Amendment Bylaw, taking into account the substantive and procedural issues raised during the hearing, and then return the bylaw to first reading with an appropriate description of the contents of the bylaw (i.e., no longer referring to it as a “housekeeping” amendment bylaw). As a Bowen taxpayer, we have some concerns about continuing down the path of third reading and final adoption without going back to first reading, given the potential for a legal challenge. As BIM initially referred to the bylaw as “housekeeping” in its ads and public notices about the open house, etc., we believe this is problematic for BIM. We include a link to a 2018 BC Supreme Court case on this very issue, for your consideration (bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/18/03/2018BCSC0392.htm). To quote from the case:
“Next, one must consider the requirements in the statute as to notice and their purpose. The notice is not required to set out the provisions of the by-law, but its intent in general terms. A major part of its purpose is to inform those citizens of the municipality who might reasonably be deemed to be affected by the proposed re-zoning, including owners and occupiers nearby, of what the intent of the by-law is so that such persons, average citizens, may come to an informed conclusion as to whether to attend or take part in representations at the public meeting. They are to be informed within reason as to the extent, if any, to which the by-law might affect them, so that they might reach a conclusion as to whether to seek further details by perusing the by-law and the like. It is essential for the citizen in question to be informed of the intent of the by-law. ...”
Another quote: “This was tantamount to the City advertising for a housekeeper when a renovating contractor was required.”
We submit that the initial characterization of this bylaw as “housekeeping” was not appropriate to allow the average citizen to be notified in a timely manner of the changes being proposed.
There is a small group of home shop motor vehicle hobbyists who have offered and are willing to provide input and assistance in the bylaw revisions relating to the home shop hobbyist/vehicle repair (including having provided a proposed re-write of the bylaw with regard to the vehicle repair as a home occupation and hobby as part of the public hearing submission).
Tim Misko
