Dear Editor:
On June 14, the BIM Council voted six to one to approve my family’s proposal that enables a tiny new public beach near Ecclestone Viewpoint on the north shore of Mannion Bay. It finally provides a lawful and safe public pathway across our front garden to the beach. Thanks to teamwork from Bowen council and staff, it’s our gift to the Bowen community.
Before the vote, Mayor Gary Ander commented: “I was a little surprised and maybe a little disappointed that there was a lot of errors, misrepresentation in the letters [of opposition]. I thought that was unfortunate, and it took a lot of credibility out of the letters.” It appears the errors and misrepresentations continue.
The six council members who voted in favour of my family’s proposal on June 14 had thoroughly studied the site and weighed citizens’ input, but readers of the Friends of Ecclestone Letter published in the Undercurrent on July 1 might miss the errors cited therein.
For accurate information, Google “BIM council meeting - June 14 2021. Begin with Coun. Alison Morse’s concise critique at the 1:03 mark. Within five minutes, Ms. Morse states:
- “There already is a dock there, and this one will be parallel and roughly the same size, so it’s not bothering the visuals from the beach.”
- “Article 5 of the Mannion Bay License of Occupation clearly contemplates other docks. . . .
- “There is nothing in the bylaws that prohibits this dock.”
- “The dock doesn’t impact the access to the Ecclestone beach.
- “The variances are all for the benefit of the community.”
- The proposed stairs would be dangerous and not practical. “And we already have an existing easement that’s going to be easy to access and easy to look after for anybody.”
- “I find it quite incredible that people that have docks have objected to somebody else having one.”
In addition to the statements of Coun. Morse, I address the concerns of Ecclestone ‘Friends’ in turn:
Issue 1 with respect to proposed dock size: The float size has been reduced and the variance enables the dock to be five feet shorter. The dock will not overwhelm the pocket beach. It ensures access to the pocket beach and allows recreational use of the beach while being consistent with development goals and present development in the area.
Issue 2 regarding an “exchange”: The SROW for beach trail access was offered in exchange for a dock setback variance. To appreciate a longstanding community desire for access to the beach, the SROW was granted and this kind of arrangement is a normal and frequent by-product between local government and private land owners where both parties benefit. There is no malfeasance here and nothing exceptional about the agreement.
Issue 3 with respect to interference with water access to the beach: It is simply not true that the dock interferes with water access to the beach by swimmers. The area immediately around the proposed dock is not suitable or desired for water entry. This development does nothing but eliminate safety concerns and to suggest otherwise is misleading.
Issue 4 with respect to contravention of the land use bylaw: Variances exist explicitly to consider unique hardships and unanticipated consequences of the strict application of a bylaw. The minor concern requiring a variance was to allow for moving the dock as far away from the beach as possible such that it does not impose. To now assert a contravention because the dock is “too close to the adjacent road allowance” when the alternative is seeking a variance to place the dock closer to, or on, the beach is guileful. But, even more significant is that a neighbour’s legal non-conforming boat house and dock already extend immediately from the adjacent road allowance, preventing any future road allowance development.
Issue 5 about ecological concern: We are committed to net ecological benefit. We gladly agreed to ecological measures, including dock materials and building protocol, that BIM staff and First Nations governance identified for us. We have accepted, satisfied, and adhered to all provincial requirements and ecological measures. We are drawing on intertidal and subtidal studies by AquaTerra Environmental Ltd and Underwaterangel Diving Services. The float anchor blocks will not be “dragging” but be firmly placed, with ecological care.
What good is Official Community Planning and designating potential land use to residents of Bowen Island through community visioning documents when land owners are denied the opportunity to use their property for the exact purpose for which Bowen Island municipal documents permit? Further, land use is beyond the purview of the Province of British Columbia, having been delegated to Bowen Island Municipality. The matter was vociferously debated and counsel has astutely considered all pertinent and relevant facts in approving the dock.
In the spirit of the proposal accepted by Bowen council six to one, my family will continue our efforts to make the aquatic area suitable for swimmers, watercraft and ecological diversity. We welcome constructive teamwork from sincere neighbours.
Tim Klauke
Editor's note: an earlier version of this said that the dock would be five inches shorter - it will be five feet shorter, with the variance.
