The text of Lannie Keller’s Tuesday, March 11 presentation made to the Electoral Areas Services Committee
I’m here to present local concerns and request SRD’s help to avert a land use conflict and a Bylaw zoning violation at Read Island.
To begin, I’m grateful to live in unceded traditional territory of the Homalco and Klahoose First Nations. And for the wild beauty of this place.
We moved to Read Island in 1980, and have made our living creating and running (what is now) Canada’s longest operating kayak touring company from our home in Evans Bay. Coast Mountain Expeditions has become Read Island’s largest employer. We offer activities based on wilderness ambience – all in this local area. Our business is threatened by Island Sea Farm’s Aquaculture License #1401594, conditionally approved by the province in June 2023.
The License application received 46 comments – regarding, noise, traffic, lights, debris, and industrial activities that disregard residents, visitors, local employment — and proper PROCESS. The Province knew full-well that the application was NOT-compliant with SRD Zoning – so the license issued is conditional. We petition SRD to enforce the requirement for rezoning before any development occurs.
In 44 years, we’ve watched commercial aquaculture from its beginnings – some successes, but many derelict installations and mega-tons of garbage… Beautiful shorelines damaged and residents leading cleanup efforts. We’ve also watched the evolution of Rural Land Use Bylaw 1460.
Zoning is meant to reduce land use conflict, and a primary reason for Bylaw 1460 was to control proliferation of fish farms. In 1993 there was major community support as SRD established zoning to protect the outer islands from unrestrained development.
Island Sea Farm’s conditionally approved Aquaculture License site is the hatched area on the middle map. It has complicated history, including some mistakes:
In 1985 one of BC’s first fish farms established there. (See the dark blue area, tucked along the shore.) Bylaw 1460 later zoned the site for what it was, AQ3 finfish. The Provincial license subsequently changed hands four times; and circa 1996, the size almost doubled, to 7.2 ha (note the map’s larger hatched area.) At that same time, the license map zoning was changed from AC2 to AQ2 – from Access to Aquaculture, BUT the re-zoning via re-labelling is undocumented at SRD, where there is no record of receiving a referral notice, and there was no rezoning application or any further process. (This should have included public notification and a hearing.)
The same larger hatched (public access) area has now been conditionally re-licensed for increased aquaculture activity –but it is and it always has been zoned AC2and it has never been marked with buoys or developed in any way. The small blue area is the only part that has ever been used.
For several decades, the small tenure was just a few poorly maintained sometimes sinking shellfish rafts. In 2010 it was bought by resident locals who made it productive; in 2017, they retired and sold to ISF.
Island Sea Farm’s first action was replacing good flotation with poorly wrapped Styrofoam – and ignoring community complaints. More recently they applied to increase infrastructure: from 12 to 96 rafts, adding anchors, ropes, massive amounts of plastic and predator netting and 13 night lights – for a plan that occupies the never-before-used area that has always has been, and still-is, zoned AC2 Public Access.
ISF’s Application-Reason cites their need to relocate noisy summer operations away from Gorge Harbour because of community complaints. Transplanting this to Evans Bay is not community friendly, is contrary to local zoning, and represents a dramatic intensification over any previous use.
The NE arm of Evans Bay by our lodge is very protected safe-harbour for boats. Our kayaking customers and the yachts that anchor here every night of the summer are seeking beauty, peace and quiet…
The Island Sea Farm Expansion threatens all of this.
And no one knows this better than local residents. We are SRD’s eyes and ears on the ground here, where government doesn’t have a physical presence, and we can provide a level of oversight. This community is not anti-development, but there are rules, and we want to protect some things.
We are concerned about this application, starting with its maybe- careless or maybe-intentional missing and misinformation. This was compounded because the advising agencies (TC, DFO and the Province) never visited the site – meaning the Provincial Decisionmaker lacked critical information for considering the actual extent and cumulative impacts of the expansion, or how and why the non-compliant and non-existent zonings came to be.
In early communications about the ISF application, Carlos Burgo the provincial aquaculture officer, wrote to me that “a tenure would not be offered if the area cannot be brought into compliance with off bottom shellfish aquaculture.” And, that the Province “will defer completely to the SRD on zoning requirements.”
In another email he explained “In the spirit of efficient and timely decision making” the Province would continue their review process but “will not be able to make a final recommendation until the rezoning process undertaken by SRD is complete.” So, when the license was rather-suddenly approved, Mr. Burgo expressed surprise, but he still assured me that the restrictive condition in the license guaranteed due process… and that local zoning compliance was required.
I also had a number of calls and emails with SRD planner John Neill, who was watching this file. He mentioned having communications with the Province about noncompliance. When the conditional license was issued John Neill was shocked — and displeased. He said that SRD have no authority to force the applicant to apply for rezoning. He DID speak with the Licensee and explained the rezoning requirement AND the application process. But the Licensee did nothing and 20 months later, the Licensee has still not applied for rezoning.
In this interim, SRD obtained legal advice about their jurisdiction. This verified SRD authority to enforce local zoning, and confirmed SRD’s role and duties to:
- Provide vision, goals and guidelines for aquaculture through Official Community Plans
- Zone the surface of the water and regulate permitted uses.
More than 20 months after the License was issued, there has been no development at the site. Yet, we remain fearful that the applicant could easily install infrastructure, even without zoning. Because precedents give us reason for concern, and because after expensive development has occurred, authorities are frequently disinclined (or unable) to undo wrongful situations.
If this happens, the industrial activity will impact and jeopardize our business. Residents and visitors will be upset and unhappy, and
it will also damage community’s confidence in the effectiveness of local government and Bylaws.
Aug 28/2024, Carlos Burgo wrote that “the onus to inform the Province of non-compliance lies with the Regional District.” And he said “We have yet to receive any notification that the tenure [Licensee] has been issued a notice of non-compliance with zoning bylaws.”
It’s a bit of a Catch 22. The Provincial officer didn’t (or couldn’t) say what’s-next if a provincially-permitted license remains non-compliant with local zoning. He didn’t have an answer for what happens if a licensee develops a provincially-approved site in contravention of local zoning. He wouldn’t say how long an undeveloped License offer remains viable and what happens if the time is expired…
Currently there isn’t new noncompliant infrastructure, but (for all concerned) we want to prevent that.
We believe there is an opportunity to uphold Bylaw 1460, and we are appealing for SRD to use your authority.
WE REQUEST TWO THINGS:
- For SRD to inform the Province that the licensee has been “issued a notice of non-compliance with zoning bylaws,” and that the Licensee has been fully informed, and has not taken action to comply with the re-zoning requirement.
- For SRD to please confirm for us, that local zoning compliance will be enforced, including rezoning (with public hearing) ahead of any on-site development. And that if any noncompliant infrastructure is installed, that it will be removed by the Licensee.
Thank you for hearing me and thank you for your consideration.
