This is in response to two letters to the editor regarding land use regulations in electoral areas of qathet Regional District [“Time for land use discussion in qathet Regional District,” February 4], [“Engaged in land use,” February 9]
There have been questions, comments and speculation regarding why I voted against initiating public engagement regarding increased regulations. At the (qRD) board, I was ruled out of order for discussing the matter of cost, and was no longer allowed to participate in the discussion/debate. I believe cost to the taxpayers is an important matter for your elected officials to discuss. The reasons for voting no are as follows.
1. Last May, the board passed a resolution stating that the matter would not be debated until after the provincial health officer lifted physical distancing restrictions. That resolution was never rescinded.
2. The Official Community Plan (OCP) contains policies that are adopted by the community after thorough and extensive public engagement. The topic of generalized regulations comes up every time the OCP goes through the review process. I believe the OCP Review process is the most appropriate channel for discussing area wide land use policies and principles, including regulatory options.
3. Public engagement in 2019 found about 80 per cent of respondents in Area B were opposed to increasing regulations regarding Natural Hazard Development Permits in the OCP. The impression I received was that introducing broad regulations without a thorough OCP review was not appropriate.
4. I am concerned over the cost, and how thorough the public engagement is going to be. The regulation study had budgeted $25,000. There had been mention that public engagement could cost $25,000. I estimated this project would cost the rural residents $50,000. This was considered out of order.
5. Based on the regulation study, it advocates for educating the public on the benefits of increased regulations from local government. Unfortunately there is a common misconception regarding electoral areas of the regional district. We do not live in the “Wild West.” You can’t “just do what you want.”
If there is any “education” towards increasing regulations, then I believe it should include educating the public on existing regulations. All provincial and federal regulations apply to the electoral areas regardless of local government restrictions.
For example: gravel pits, landfills, private managed forest lands, dams, drug treatment homes, harbours, lake cabins, boat ramps, log sorts, improvement districts, wells, watersheds, water licenses, sewage treatment systems, roads, ditches/drainage, and road safety to name a few.
The BC Building Code applies, and the Homeowner Protection Act applies to any new residential construction. There is also the issue of provincial government regulatory downloading. The provincial government often exercises its ability to introduce additional regulatory requirements for various land use applications to local governments. If qRD adopts additional land use regulations, it comes with additional provincial regulatory requirements.
My principle as an elected official is: convince me to vote yes.
If discussion and debate is occurring outside the board room, and the vote gets pushed through after shutting down debate, I will vote no.
Mark Gisborne is the director for qathet Regional District Electoral Area B.
