by Laura Walz [email protected] Powell River Regional District rural directors are opposed to a proposed private dock in Frolander Bay south of Powell River.
Directors voted at a recent regional board meeting to advise the ministry of forests, lands and natural resource operations that the regional district is “strongly opposed” to the application for private moorage over the foreshore because of concerns about the impact on public access and foreshore erosion.
Three residents who live in the bay made a presentation to the board, outlining their objections to the application. The proponents are proposing to build a 350-foot wharf that is 20 feet wide. As well, they are applying for control over an additional 40 feet of foreshore.
John Phillips explained that in 2005 an application was made for private moorage at the far end of the bay. The proponents were proposing to build a large wharf that was 146 feet long. At the time, all of the residents in the area signed a petition opposing the application. As a result, the government rejected the application, Phillips said.
“There was such a strong, negative response to the previous application, which was for a wharf that is half the size of the one that they’re applying for now, that we thought...there would be a precedent set for any future proposals,” Phillips said. “We would like to make sure that proposals like this don’t go ahead.”
Maurice Shapiro, another resident in the bay, told directors that the legal notice submitted to the Peak about the application had a number of errors in it, including the file number and the deadline for public response, which is actually October 19, he said.
Frolander Bay is a small bay, Shapiro said, which has about 19 oceanfront properties and one located behind those. Twenty-four residents have signed a petition opposing the application and several have written letters as well, Shapiro said. “The wharf is not only too large for the size of the bay, the area of occupation is actually 390 feet,” he said. “This will in effect cut off from the public a large portion of the bay and impede foot traffic along the beach. It will also impact the existing public access which is in close proximity to the new proposed pier.”
The dock would be exposed to the full force of southeast storms, Shapiro said, and it has the potential to pollute the bay, which supports shellfish, fish, sea lions, dolphins and a large range of sea grasses.
Another resident, Craig Brownhill, told directors he lives adjacent to the proposed pier, which, he said, would block access for other residents. “I think the bay should be left as is, with access for all,” he said.
Directors decided to rescind a motion passed at the planning committee that stated the regional district had no objections to the application, with a number of conditions. They passed a new motion that opposed the application, because it would block public access on the foreshore, impact foreshore erosion, be exposed to southeast storms and because the regional district is aware of strong opposition by adjoining property owners. The motion will also point out that a similar application was turned down in 2005.
