Provincial politics could interfere with the future of a controversial bylaw designed to protect sensitive ecological areas.
While the District of Saanich has yet to schedule a public hearing on the proposed temporary suspension of the Environmental Development Permit Area bylaw for single residences, one potential public hearing date is May 9 – the day of the provincial election.
“That is one of the complications,” said Donna Dupas, legislative division manager. Others include finding an appropriate venue to ensure all interested residents can participate in a future public hearing, she said. The other date specifically reserved for a public hearing would be April 25.
Dupas said the district has not yet made a decision and continues to work towards a satisfactory solution in light of various statutory requirements and workload.
Questions on the timing of a hearing emerged Monday as council forwarded eight more EDPA exclusion requests to public hearing without yet having heard public input on previous exclusion requests and the proposed temporary suspension of the EDPA bylaw. Council is expected to receive another round of exclusion applications at its next meeting.
Coun. Leif Wergeland said Saanich runs the threat of being caught in a “vicious circle” if it does not resolve the EDPA issue. “The longer we are in this complicated process … the longer we drag this out and it is going to get more difficult to get buy-in from the residents,” he said. “The sooner we can get to the end, the better we will all be.”
Council heard from staff that it is working as quickly as possible to juggle these multiple applications in light of various statutory requirements subject to specific timelines as prescribed under the Local Government Act.
While council sent the proposed temporary suspension of the EDPA bylaw on March 6, chief administrative officer Paul Thorkelsson told council that it would not be unusual to see two months pass between council’s motion and a public hearing.
It could take even longer, he said. “We are trying to move these [applications] forward as quickly as we can,” he said. “We are intending to do a very large public hearing to deal with most, if not all of them at the same time. However, this process is overwhelming our ability to manage it.”
These comments concluded a meeting during which councillors and staff found themselves at odds several times.
Perhaps the most significant of these occasions occurred when council debated an application to exclude the property at 2893 Sea View Rd. from the EDPA provisions.
While it forwarded the exclusion request to public hearing, it also exempted that property, and that property only, from the EDPA’s marine backshore provisions, which “means the upland of 15 [metres] measured from the natural boundary of the marine environment,” following separate presentation from Tyler Luchies speaking on behalf of his parents who own the property and biologist Ted Lea during which they questioned the district’s back shore provisions
The singular exemption of the property initially caused no small measure of confusion among council members.
“Council, I think one of the challenges that you are facing with this, is that we are so thin-slicing the changes here, because of specific applications, and it is not an appropriate way of going about managing bylaws,” said Thorkelsson.“However, it is the milieu in which we are in as a result of circumstances that have led us down this path. So it is as equally frustrating for staff as it is for you as it is for the general public in terms of level of confusion…”
Coun. Dean Murdock agreed with these comments. “This doesn’t feel like good public policy,” he said. “This seems like we are really getting into tinkering in a realm that has profound implications and I am troubled by that.”
Coun. Fred Haynes, however, disagreed. “It is important to remember that a year ago we voted to keep the EDPA in place and to consider properties one at a time as they came forward,” he said. “That is why we are here today. So we are thin-slicing. But a year ago, that was the decision. This is the outcome of that decision.”
He also reminded the public that the property remains in the EDPA at least until a future public hearing.
