DEAR EDITOR:
At the March 22 Council meeting a Temporary Use Permit (TUP) was granted for the cidery on Laura Rd. We have now had two “TUP bombs” that have deeply divided Bowen neighbourhoods in the past year, first in the Deep Bay neighbourhood and now at Westside Road – Laura Road. It is time for the municipality to make significant improvements to what is currently a deeply flawed TUP process. We see two specific problems and propose solutions.
Problem #1: There is no required consultation with neighbours prior to submitting the TUP application. If a TUP application is submitted for a property within a strata, a strata resolution is required prior to submission; but outside of a strata, within any other neighbourhood, there is no required consultation prior to submission. Is it any wonder that we see the reaction we do, when people learn of a significant proposed change in their neighbourhood with less than a month to respond?
Proposed Solution: Take the TUP-process flowchart on the municipal website; add one more box/arrow to what is there; label it “Consultation with Neighbours”; and add it to the start of the process.
Problem #2: It has become obvious over the past couple of weeks that there was a large disconnect between what Rob Purdy and Christine Hardy have stated that they want to do at the cidery, and what was included, through consultation with planning staff, in the TUP application. Rob and Christine only want to operate Thursday to Sunday, noon to 4 p.m. But what was in the initial TUP application? 9 a.m. to 11 p.m., seven days a week. Why would the TUP state that they are requesting six times as many hours as they actually will use? Rob and Christine plan to apply for rezoning, so likely only need a nine, at most 16-month, TUP. But what was requested in the TUP application? Three years. Why does the TUP request twice the length of time that they actually need? Rob and Christine have already defined and built the indoor retail space and outdoor patio space that they need. But what was in the TUP application? An allowance for three times as much space. This consistent ‘inflating’ of what is actually needed is damaging to the entire TUP process. It hurts the applicant because it raises additional, unnecessary concerns among neighbours who are trying to understand the issues raised by the application. It hurts neighbours who may be unnecessarily upset due to the inflated scope of the application. It hurts neighbourhoods who have unnecessary level of conflict imposed on them. And it hurts council and staff, who have to manage the unnecessary conflict that this inflated TUP creates.
Solution: Request that the planning staff develop a TUP application that captures only what is needed and minimizes the impact on the neighbourhood. The repeated reference last night to the “misunderstanding” of what was being proposed was a clear indication of the large disconnect between the TUP application and what Rob and Christine actually wanted.
It is the role of planning staff to advise applicants, to understand their needs and to work with the applicants and Council to craft a TUP that accurately reflects their needs. Last night we saw a failure to achieve this goal. Significant and unnecessary conflict in the Westside-Laura Road neighbourhood has been the result of this poorly crafted TUP. There was an attempt by council members during the meeting to correct this issue, but it was too little, too late; the council table is the wrong place to get these details right.
It has been disturbing to many of us to see the harm done to two neighbourhoods during these two recent TUP processes. We can do better. Our neighbourhoods deserve better. Land use planning is challenging. But we all should be able to trust that we have a process that will create the best chance for a successful outcome for all parties in any planning decision. There are many challenges facing us on our island. Let’s ensure that we have good governance in place to guide us.
Rosemary Knight and Bob Turner
