Sometimes local government affairs become heated and abrasive. During the review of a community plan for Areas B and C of the Powell River Regional District, the battle between those who want more land-use regulation and those who don’t want any has created a fair bit of friction, clashing wills and fraying tempers.
The entire regional board grappled with the Area B OCP (official community plan) at the last board meeting. Area A Director Patrick Brabazon had challenged the public hearing and process at the last board meeting and staff, who were directed to investigate the issue, presented their findings and recommendations at the board meeting.
Colin Palmer, board chair and Area C director, in a lengthy and at times astounding speech, proceeded to justify the public hearing and entire process, while at the same time attacking Brabazon. Area B Director Stan Gisborne challenged staff’s recommendations, saying they were wrong.
OCPs are broad statements of a community’s goals, objectives and policies, along with designations for land use. But they are not regulatory and are usually implemented through zoning bylaws. The 1993 OCP for Areas B and C was not implemented through zoning, which has resulted in an estimated 150 non-conforming uses. How to deal with these inappropriate uses has been a contentious issue since the regional district began its review of the OCP in 2008. After directors found themselves deadlocked last year, staff recommended separating Areas B and C into distinct OCPs.
Compounding the issue is a small policy in the existing OCP that has a huge impact. Known as D5, it states that all existing uses will be acknowledged through an appropriate designation in any future land use regulations.
Many people in the rural areas are calling for regulations that will stop businesses from establishing operations on property not designated for commercial or industrial use, then obtaining the appropriate designation in the new OCP. Many people submitted these concerns during the southern regional district OCP review.
The fact that the binder containing a record of that public input was not available during the Area B OCP public hearing and a sloppy job of chairing the meeting added another layer of complexity to an already complex issue.
In an effort to sort out the issue once again, staff recommended the regional district hold another public hearing about the draft Area B OCP and a majority of the board agreed. That was the right thing to do. It gives residents another opportunity to participate in a process that should be transparent and open and gives elected officials a chance to demonstrate they are accountable.
