Those Pesky Regulatory Bylaws

Among the hot button topics over the years are the perceived impacts of regulatory bylaws. I don't think many people are opposed to things like noise bylaws, or the dock or fire bylaws. What gets people is the wording, and the types of powers they give some bureaucrat to snoop around your yard just because someone has phoned in a complaint, or worse, because they 'think' there might have been a transgression.

A couple of thoughts. First, no municipal employee wants to go out looking for trouble. There are plenty of other things to occupy one's time. Second, bylaws may seem pretty hard nosed, but the purpose is obviously to have teeth to be able to go after the serious transgressors.

Bylaw enforcement is based on a continuum of methods to 'obtain compliance' before and after a ticket is written, beginning with simple communications, site visits, negotiation- and only as last resort is legal action taken.

But back to the bylaws, and in particular, the recent proposed LUB amending bylaws for Development Permit Areas. We have now enacted the RAR (Riparian Area Regulation), after much discussion- and exempted 30 metres around a house, which amounts to close to an acre. So right off the bat, most people's homes and gardens are unaffected. As well, this was a replacement bylaw, and mandated by the provincial government. Finally, why would anyone object to protecting our streams and water sources?

Steep slopes is a bit different. The reason the old bylaw was pulled (over 10 years ago), was because of poor mapping. We now have very accurate LIDAR maps, so that has been overcome. What gets people is that at 30% slopes (16 degrees), a large chunk of Bowen gets included. As we know, many properties on steep slopes have been build without creating or exacerbating a hazard. However, there have been several notable slope slippages, one of which cost over $200,000 in public funds to rectify.

I am not a geotech., and recognize 30% is the common default minimum threshold for some good reason. But on solid rock, it seems a bit excessive. I would prefer to see a graduated scale- moderate/steep, with different requirements for obtaining the DP. As well, I think size and scaled exemptions (eg lower impact developments) should be excluded. With readings now rescinded, this can be revisited and amended. But we should still pass the bylaw.

Similarly with ESA's (environmentally sensitive area DP). Again, what caught most people off guard was the sheer scale- after all, most of the Crown Lands are good sized second growth and got included as Mature Forest designations. The limitations on tree cutting were thought to be too restrictive, and I agree. Either area based exemptions, or scaled (x trees/acre/year) is a way to go. But to protect bluffs and other sensitive features, no question in my mind.

To me, it boils down to reasonableness. The noise bylaw was originally designed to stop long term nuisance- eg an Eaglecliff subdivision where blasting and machine work went on for years, almost entirely on weekends. However, some zealous Council members got the idea to restrict such things as lawn mowing on Sundays, and the whole bylaw went sideways. It became an embarrassment, and it failed. A pity, in my view. All along I had argued for a moderately worded bylaw that went after the real problem. I'd like to stick with the basic bylaw and get it passed.