Dear Editor:
Bowen Island Municipality has scheduled a public hearing for July 12 on the proposed Land Use Bylaw amendment No 528, 2020. Everyone ought to be informed of the many, many LUB changes proposed.
As presented at the bylaw’s first reading last December: “B.I. Council is considering a series of changes to the Land Use Bylaw… intended to streamline and clarify definitions and regulations within the bylaw, for height, grade, floor space, lot coverage and lot lines…changes would also occur to remove redundant definitions.”
At a poorly announced public house held March 11 over Zoom, only one person participated with a few questions regarding the proposed changes. On the second reading, May 25, some written comments were sent to Mayor and council regarding the format of the amendments – that they’re too large and too complex to be accessible – and a few changes were also questioned for their technical definitions (automobile repair, wetlands, vineyards).
There has been no offer to partition voluminous LUB amendments into, for instance, two main divisions: one for all technical regulations such as height, grade, floor space, lot coverage, parking, lot lines, and the other for all land use definitions to which changes were made.
Those definition changes are most concerning. Amendments were made without rationale or explanation within three connected sections: a) amending the following definitions, b) deleting the following definitions, c) inserting the following definitions. From a) to b) to c) a number of definitions were first amended, then deleted or modified by a new definition, all of it without reference to reason and oblivious to a created redundancy.
Under the section combining definition, eleven categories of specific land use names are being deleted to be replaced by imprecise generic names that can only be confusing at best, if not manipulative and misleading. For instance, the term “public library” is deleted along with “museum” and “gallery” to be replaced by “public community facility” (as would be also “cafeteria” and “washroom”) without any explanation. Why such a change contrary to our connection, our knowledge and understanding of the names of such places.
In the same manner the terms “police station,” “ambulance hall” and “fire hall” are being deleted and replaced by “emergency services”: this generic term does not accurately describe those organizations and their locations, whose role is also educational with their active participation in community events and security control. Meanwhile the generic name could also include plumbers, electricians, mechanics, nurses and doctors among others who are also involved in “emergency services”!
To complete that small selection of examples, why is “horticulture” being deleted, which is garden cultivation (from hortus –“garden” in Latin) while “agriculture,” which means large scale field cultivation (from ager, agri – “field” in Latin) is being amended to exclude intensive agriculture. As a certified horticulturist am I also being deleted?
I am certainly not a jurist and yet I learned very early in my studies the necessity of clarity and accuracy of definitions and names. It was, indeed, essential in horticulture and botany to know, to understand and to recognize the diversity of plants. To illustrate: potato, tomato, eggplants and nightshade have all the generic name of Solanaceae, given their common characteristics. Would you feel at ease to know them by their generic name only?
Let us be clear about it, simplification and changes or amendments may be needed for a bylaw that’s 20 years old, but not at the cost of misrepresentation and without clear explanation provided to the public. So far our elected officials have failed in their function of protecting the interest of our community in allowing unanimously to give first and second reading without appropriate question and discussions of the multiple changes being proposed without rational explanation is not to their honour. They failed to pinpoint the complexity of the document for the public to be aware of the extent of the changes. As proposed the bylaw ought not to become a legal official municipal document.
André H. Chollat
