Category Archives: News

Victory in Supreme Court

Docks Bylaw Lawsuit Dismissed

THANKS TO COUNCIL
(April 4th, 2015) It’s been almost a year since Bowen Municipal Council passed the Docks Bylaw, preventing applications for new docks at Cape Roger Curtis. It was a controversial decision, taken under threat of a lawsuit. It’s a great time to thank Council for their decision, and congratulate them on weathering the storm so far.Write a message to all the councilors at once. Though not all councilors voted in favour of the bylaw, it reminds everyone of your support for it.

On March 31st, The Honourable Mr. Justice Punnett delivered his judgement on the case Shu Lin Dong and Zhen Wang vs. Bowen Island Municipality. He dismissed the lawsuit and awarded costs to the Municipality. For supporters of our current council and Stop the Docks, this is a clear victory and vindication of several years of effort.

The two Cape Roger Curtis waterfront property owners challenged the bylaw, claiming that:

  • the bylaw was inconsistent with the Official Community Plan,
  • therefore it was beyond the Council’s authority (‘ultra vires’),
  • it was passed too fast and in bad faith,
  • it was discriminatory,
  • public consultation on the bylaw was inadequate,
  • disclosure to the public before the bylaw was passed was deficient,
  • when the bylaw was passed, some councillors failed to consider the matter 
objectively,
  • and there was a lack of procedural fairness when the bylaw was passed.

Mr. Justice Punnett dismissed every one of these grounds. He upheld the bylaw and Council’s right to pass such a bylaw. See excerpts below.

In the 45-page B.C. Supreme Court decision, Justice Punnett explains the story behind the lawsuit, the applicable precedents, and his findings on each point.
View the decision (PDF)
or on the Courts of British Columbia website.

[79] While the petitioners assert they have been targeted or singled out, the evidence is that after the first three docks were built public concern grew and the petitioners’ applications to build docks increased that concern. In the context of the Official Community Plan and the prospect of numerous and substantial docks in the area, such concerns are understandable. This does not mean the petitioners were targeted. …

[81] In my opinion Bylaw No. 381 was within the jurisdiction of the Municipal Council under the Islands Trust Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 239, the Islands Trust Policy Statement and the Local Government Act. The petitioner has failed to show that the public interest was not the basis for the decision of the majority of the Municipal Council who voted to adopt Bylaw No. 381. The petitioner has not shown there was some other motive or basis for adopting that bylaw. …

[82] The petitioner alleges that by refusing permission to Cape Roger Curtis property owners to build moorage structures Bylaw No. 381 is discriminatory and therefore illegal. [83] Zoning bylaws are by their nature inherently discriminatory, in that some uses are permitted and some are not. Section 479(4), formerly 903 (3) of the Local Government Act expressly authorizes bylaws that may be different for different zones. …

[93] There is no evidence that the councillors voting in favour of Bylaw No. 381 did so without regard for the public interest. Indeed the level of interest in the issue and the comprehensive information provided to the public and to council would accentuate the public interest. The evidence does not show that the council members ignored or failed to consider all relevant factors and issues. …

[97] … I find no discrimination in law. The evidence does not establish any improper motive, purpose or other irrelevant considerations by Municipal Council.

[125] There is no evidence that the Municipality limited or attempted to limit public debate. There is no evidence that anyone was prevented from saying anything at the public hearing. All who wished to speak were permitted to do so. …

[129] With respect to the allegation that the Municipality passed the bylaw as quickly as possible, which the petitioners say leads to the inference that they were trying to trump the tenure approvals and limit public debate, the evidence does not indicate that to be the case.

[133] The “legitimate expectation” relied on by the petitioners is that the existing regulatory framework would not be changed from the time they initially applied to build a dock and their approval and completion. The doctrine’s application however does not have the substantive effect the petitioners suggest.

[135] Because the decision in question was legislative as opposed to administrative the doctrine does not apply. As a result not only did the petitioners not initially have a “right” to the zoning that permitted a private moorage for every lot nor do they have a “right” to that zoning never being altered.

[137] I do not accept the petitioners submission that the overall situation is that the petitioners are “victims of a ruthless bylaw that was passed to target the petitioners for no justifiable reason”. In my view the bylaw, while prompted by concerns raised by the grandfathered docks and the petitioners’ proposed docks, does not target the petitioners nor is there “no justifiable reason”. The Official Community Plan encompasses broader issues affecting the public interest, an interest that is clearly of significance given the subject is the construction of moorage facilities on the foreshore and into the sea, areas that are Crown property and are open to public access. …

[138] Nor do I accept that the Municipal Council prejudiced and deprived the petitioners of rights because “subjectively” they did not like the view and on a “whim” they deprived the petitioners’ of substantive rights attached to their land. That characterization ignores the fact that the Official Community Plan includes the issue of viewscapes and public access.

[139] The petitioners’ argument in essence, as noted in para. 16(d) of the petition where they allege the Municipality “failed to come to a reasonable solution,” is that the Municipality was obliged to behave reasonably in a manner that favoured the petitioners. It is not for this Court to substitute its decision for that of the Municipal Council where they have acted lawfully and within their authority. As noted in Pollard at para. 51:
… A municipal council acting within its statutory powers is answerable to the electorate and to the Legislature. It is not answerable to this or any other Court.

[140] The petition is dismissed with costs to the respondent.

NOTE: an additional lawsuit filed by Zongshen (Canada), owner of lots 1 and 14 at the Cape, is still pending. Because it is based on very similar grounds to the previous actions, we’re optimistic that it too will be rebuffed.

Presentation to Islands Trust by Melissa Harrison

Read her insightful and articulate exposé on the Stop The Docks website.


Share

Once More with Feeling!

Council Holds Public Hearing For Docks Bylaws

Here’s the best opportunity as well as the last opportunity ever to show you care, both for the Cape Roger Curtis coastline and the Mayor and councillors who are trying to protect it. It’s been a long road, and we’re finally at the stage where we have something we can feel good about.

May 14th at 7:15pm

UPDATE: (May14th, 2015) People opposed to the Docks Bylaw have mounted a letter-writing campaign of their own. If you haven’t made a submission this time yet, would you consider a quick email to Council today? We can even take a lesson from the bylaw opponents (most of whose emails are the same) and simply use this handy template:”I support the proposed dock bylaw #381 prohibiting further construction of docks at Cape Roger Curtis. I would like the Cape coastline to remain in its natural state.”

Write this message to all the councilors at once. You can edit it before you send it if you like.

Or use this link if you use Outlook.

You can read up on the bylaw, as well as comments from the public about it and the Cape Roger saga on the Municipality website.

The whole purpose of the meeting is for Council to hear from the public. But it’s not just Council, it’s the whole island that is listening. Even a short comment from you in public at the hearing or by email helps them feel the support they need, and reduces somewhat the sting of lawsuit threats and controversy. Let’s create a supportive atmosphere where anyone can feel comfortable to speak regardless of their position on the bylaw. Our strength of numbers and the common sense in what we’re asking can carry the day.

It would be great to put this issue behind us as a community and get on with the other work that needs to be done.

Presentation to Islands Trust by Melissa Harrison

Read her insightful and articulate exposé on the Stop The Docks website.


Municipal Candidate Survey

We sent a request for a position statement about docks to all the candidates in the 2014 Municipal Election, with a form asking three yes/no questions and a providing space for a comment. Read their responses.

Share

Giant Docks – Coming to a Beach Near You?

By Melissa Harrison

Bowen Island, BC – March 10, 2015
Presented to Islands Trust

I think we will all agree that beaches and shorelines are of prime importance to our enjoyment of our island homes. Many of us, especially those with young children, spend many hours on public beaches each year. Beaches are not only important for our well-being and enjoyment, but they are also vitally important for the economies of the islands; for attracting visitors and new residents, access to beautiful coastline is key.

1. The Situation on Bowen

The shoreline of Cape Roger Curtis has long been treasured by Bowen Islanders, because of its pristine, rugged, windswept beauty, with rock pools and many pocket beaches and swimming beaches as well as great nature watching. Located in the mouth of Howe Sound, with pockets of forage fish habitat amongst the cobbles and rocks, the Cape is a stop off for migratory fish, birds and marine mammals.

Lighthouse-dock-text
When the developers of the Cape applied for four large docks, the applications attracted significant opposition. Fifty six letters were written to the Province opposing the proposed docks. The municipality wrote with a number of concerns, including the specific mention in the OCP of protecting that stretch of coastline, and asked that some further studies be done, refusing to support the applications as they stood. Additionally, the applications seemed to conflict with the Province’s own dock policy, which says that docks should not negatively impact the environment, community values or public interest. Despite all this, the Province approved the licences, citing a lack of specific prohibitions in the municipal bylaws. The approval prompted a petition in opposition which gained 1345 signatures.

For context, private docks on Bowen tend to be below or up to 65 feet long, including the length of the float. The longest dock at the Cape is 431 feet long, and stands 27 feet above the beach. Please see the second photograph below. These industrial scale structures stand beside empty lots, essentially as a developer amenity. They have been used less than a handful of times, and as they are so exposed, they will likely never be used. And yet there they will stand, monuments to bad policy and process. And there are four more dock applications with the Province for this development alone.

2. The Issue for the Islands Trust

We are seeing increasing numbers of large docks being approved by the Province in the face of public and neighbourhood opposition. I have heard directly about one on Galiano, and we have all read about the 2500 sqft, Chip Wilson application in Sechelt. Islands Trustees need to recognize that megadocks seem to have become fashionable. I suppose that large docks are needed where you plan to own a large boat and you have chosen a home because it fronts a beach but would like to reach deep water. Whereas in the past, waterfront owners would have simply accepted that their property is not suitable for a dock, now people see that as a surmountable difficulty and are willing to spend the $100k plus to do it.

2.1 Concerns with the Dock Application Process

Short Timelines Imposed

What brings me here today is a letter that Bowen municipality received two weeks ago. In that letter, the FLNRO manager of authorizations, Keith Anderson, stated that FLNRO has ‘recently developed a 140 Day Turnaround Project’ where their ‘Performance Measures’ state that ‘80% of new Land and Water Act Tenure applications must have a decision made within 140 days from the acceptance of the application.’ Bear in mind that this includes: BC notifying local authorities, proponents publishing the required public notice, public responses to the proposal, assessment of those responses, instructions to staff, assessment of the site, consideration of the application as part of a public process, responses to FLNRO. It seems to me that this timeline is an impossible imposition for small authorities to meet, given that while some applications may be very straight forward, many are complex and time consuming for local jurisdictions to assess. And yet that complex work is vital to ensure public and private interests are appropriately balanced. To give one example, folk I know in Galiano spend the winter in warmer climes. The entire application process for their neighbour’s dock took place while they were away without their even hearing about it, and they came back to find a large dock had been approved and  construction was underway, crossing in front of their property. They were devastated.

Default Approvals Encroach on Jurisdictional Right to Determine Land Uses

A giant dock oscures half the horizon from a bech on Bowen Island - The Cape On Bowen's 'Untouched Shores'

A dock with no house, obscuring half the view from our beach – approved by Provincial Government despite protest.

The 140 day processing time limitation becomes exceptionally problematic, given that FLNRO’s default seems to be to approve projects, as an implicit consequence of their ‘public commitment to cut red tape,’ rather than to take a precautionary approach, i.e. declining applications where a local jurisdiction cannot support them. In the case of the Cape Roger Curtis dock applications, the municipality refused to send a letter of support because they had asked for further studies and accommodations that were not fulfilled. Despite this, the Province chose to approve.  In my view the Province is overstepping the mark with respect to land use, by developing their ‘Turnaround Project’ and ‘cutting red tape’ policy, without any consultation with, or even giving notice to, local jurisdictions, especially since the Crown is under no obligation to approve any land disposition. Unfortunately, by limiting the ability of local jurisdictions to adequately respond, the Province severely curtails its ability to fulfill its own duty to ‘maximize and sustain the flow of economic, social and environmental benefits to British Columbians, now and in the future,’ (from the Crown Land Use Operational Policy: Private Moorage, Appendix 3) given the significant negative impact on public recreational amenities that giant private docks on public beaches impose.

Undermining Environmental Protection

The Bowen Land Use Bylaw clearly states that docks should not ‘negatively impact eelgrass meadows, kelp beds, clam beds or mussel beds.’ This statement is both clear and absolute. The Cape biological dive surveys undertaken by the proponents showed two of the docks to be located in important kelp and eelgrass beds. However the Province decided that ‘effective mitigation measures, best management practices and monitoring can be used to address impacts to aquatic values resulting in no net loss to the areas’ productive capacities’ (from their ‘Reasons for Decision, Oct 29, 2012). In this statement, the Province is accepting mitigation measures where they have neither the capacity nor interest in assuring a) that the proposed mitigation is accepted practice, b) that the proposed mitigation is carried out, or c) that the municipality has the capacity to monitor mitigation. The reality is that many of the mitigations suggested, eg transplanting eelgrass, are neither proven nor were they carried out. So in this case, even a clear and absolute prohibition of negative environmental impact in the municipal Land Use Bylaw proved to be no protection at all, because the Province took it upon itself to interpret the bylaws and to err on the side of approval rather than precaution.

Public Consultation Failure

In the case of Cape Roger Curtis, the Province received significant negative feedback from the public, totaling fifty six letters. And yet this feedback had no impact on the outcome. As the Province described their ‘referral process’ to me, they refer the applications to a small number of agencies (principally Transport Canada, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, relevant First Nations and the local authority). But the Province’s interest in public comments extends only as far as riparian access and the legal right to apply for a moorage in that location. So every single one of those families and organizations which responded to the invitation to comment were wasting their time, but more importantly, they were mislead into believing that they were contributing to a consultation process that would be an opportunity to influence the outcome. It was not.

Given that the Province also ignored the municipality’s interpretation of their OCP, this means that in effect, the only opportunity for public input to influence the outcome of dock applications is through explicit prohibitions, nailed down in local bylaws, and even those, it seems, are subject to interpretation.

2.2 No Protection of Enjoyment of Beaches in the Islands Trust Policy

Moving on from the Provincial dock application process, in exploring the issues surrounding the Cape docks, I looked to the Islands Trust Policy Statement. In Part V: Sustainable Communities, the policy speaks to protection of ‘scenic values, views, distinctive features,’ the preservation of ‘natural amenities’ and ‘natural heritage’. All of these could apply to beaches and coastal viewscapes; yet in the directive policies and recommendations section, there is mention of preserving tree cover, but it says nothing about the aesthetic and recreational enjoyment of beaches, for just hanging out at the beach. Further, in Part IV: Stewardship of Resources, 4.5 Coastal Areas and Marine Shorelands, the policy says that development should not ‘restrict public access to, from or along the marine shoreline’ and should ‘minimize impacts on sensitive coastal environments.’ However, again it omits to refer to aesthetic and recreational enjoyment of beaches. Given the significance of beaches as a natural amenity to islanders’ social, cultural and economic wellbeing, this seems to me a significant omission which could be easily and uncontroversially addressed, and would provide better guidance and safeguards to the local trusts.

2.3 Recommendations for Trustees

In summary, I have a number of recommendations that I urge you to consider:

  • All trustees should be informed about the risks posed to treasured beaches and shorelines by the growing trend for giant docks, as well as the Province’s new policies that are making it difficult for local jurisdictions to satisfactorily influence the outcome of dock applications.
  • Trustees should consider updating local bylaws, zoning and OCPs, posthaste.
  • The Trust as a whole should consider updating the Policy Statement to explicitly include the protection of aesthetic and recreational enjoyment of beaches, in the sections suggested above.
  • That the Trust should inform the Province that:
    • The 140 day ‘Turnaround Project’ is impossible for local authorities to administer.
    • That the Province needs to consult with those who have jurisdiction over land use before adopting such policies.
    • Beaches and coast aesthetics are important public amenities for the social, cultural and economic wellbeing and character of islands, and dock applications are complex to assess. Therefore BC should exercise their option to decline applications where they cannot be wholeheartedly supported by the local jurisdiction.
    • Public process needs to have an impact to be valid, and the Province should either consider handing the responsibility for managing that to the local jurisdiction, or change their criteria for assessment to include the public interest.
    • The Province should consider dealing with private and community docks in a  completely separate process to that with which they manage mining, forestry, aquaculture, because these procedures and policies, geared towards industry, are proving to be too blunt an instrument to manage the subtleties of the disposition of local, residential shorelines.
Share

Summer 2014 Update

Summer 2014 Update

Time for Phase 2 of the Docks Bylaw

What is Cape Roger Curtis like now? There is a dock at Lot 13. It broke apart in a mild early summer storm. There is a dock at Lot 11, Pebble Beach. It has been modified with additional pylons, presumably to reduce the likelihood of it falling apart, too. And there is a dock at Lot 15, the lighthouse. All of these docks are located in inappropriate locations, destroying the viewscape and harming the marine environment. No one lives on these properties. These are docks created for absentee owners. One more dock is permitted for Lot 6.

The dock at Lot 13 twisted and broke in a mild June storm.

The dock at Lot 13 twisted and broke in a mild June storm.

Two docks at the Cape have been pending review since last summer. Another megadock application has been submitted by the International Buddhist Society for a dock at Grafton Bay. And the most recent megadock application is for Bowen Bay.

The dock bylaw we pushed so hard together to get in place last November should prevent the approval of the last two applications on the grounds of excessive length. We shall see.

In the meantime, municipal council has chosen to forget the docks. They have not proceeded, as promised, with the second phase of bylaw development, the phase that protects the beaches and foreshore in the public interest. While we wait to witness the further damage wrought by nature (“Nature bats last”), and to see how the four pending applications are decided, we are preparing for the next part of the fight: to ensure that the second phase of the bylaw is on the agenda to protect the public interest at Cape Roger Curtis.

Giant docks resume construction: Lot 11 dock will block view from two public beaches.

Work resumed on Wednesday, February 12, on the dock at Pebble Beach, a public beach on Bowen. Also, surveying work and diving is in progress at Lot 6, at Arbutus Point. Two additional dock footings have been installed at Lot 15, at the Lighthouse. Both Lots 6 and 15 appear to be again for sale (MLS listings and new signage on the Lot 15 property). Possibly a dock is intended to add value in any real-estate flip. The developer and Lot 11 owner, Edwin Lee of Leeda Developments, has not commented publicly on public dismay at his construction.

Stop The Docks encourages Bowen Islanders to drive down to the Cape and see for yourself what is going on. Wakefield/Hanson Marine have typically fast-tracked this stage of construction, bringing a barge over in the early morning, pile-driving into the seabed all day, and working until dark. It may be your last opportunity to see Pebble Beach without a dock running through it.

Beginning of the end for the view from Pebble Beach

Share

Protest against the Dock at Pebble Beach Continues

The following letter from Dr. Richard Wiefelspuett was sent on February 13, 2014, to Bowen Island Municipality, Transport Canada, and the Province of BC (Forest, Lands and Natural Resources and the reponsible minister). It was published in part in the Undercurrent (February 21 issue).

Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,

The Bowen Island Municipality Land Use Bylaw regulates water use zones and specifically designates the coastal area of Cape Roger Curtis as WG1 zoning which includes as a condition of use the following: “Community dock, neighborhood dock and moorage shall be located such that it will not limit use of or physically divide a beach or negatively impact eelgrass meadows, kelp beds, clam beds or mussel beds.”

I hereby formally protest against the dock construction works at lot#11 that have commenced today and request your immediate intervention and suspension of all works until a proper and independent review has addressed the following short-falls of the approval process.

The approval process for granting the permit for this dock has failed to properly consider:
- the destructive impact the dock will have on eelgrass in the bay
- specific definition and the supervised implementation of effective mitigating measures
- the public’s right to the unimpeded access to and from the beach (NWPA)
- enforcement of Best Practices

Further, the construction of dock #11 has violated the terms and stipulations of the specially protected Covenant Zone at Cape Roger Curtis.

1. Eelgrass

The presence of eelgrass in the bay has been evidenced by a privately funded dive survey and the official eelgrass mapping project conducted by the Island Trust. The employed spud barge kills eelgrass each time it anchors itself on the seabed during the lengthy piling process. The extensive anchors and anchor chains that will be installed to position the float for the dock will kill eelgrass. The shade cast by the lengthy dock components (wharf, gangway, float) will kill eelgrass.

As witnessed during the installation of dock #13 best practices have been ignored and anchor chains were dragged extensively over the ocean floor during the installation. The same contractor is at work at dock#11. The same process will kill eelgrass within the extensive footprint of the dock and its anchor systems. I estimate that more than 75% of all eelgrass in the bay will be destroyed as a direct consequence of this dock.

2. Navigable Waters Protection Act (NWPA)

Through an access to information request I have received all drawings submitted to Transport Canada for the review of compliance under the NWPA. After review of these drawings the information provided in the drawings is indicative of the detrimental impact these docks will have on the public’s right to unimpeded access to the adjacent beaches and water. It is incomprehensible that TC approved the docks on the basis of these drawings despite the significant impediment of the adjacent beaches and access to and from the water that these docks will cause.

With specific reference to Lot # 11 (2011-500588) the drawings show anchor locations and a spread of anchor chains that intercept the adjacent beach and impede the navigable waters. These components will endanger boaters, swimmers and divers and will impede access to and from the adjacent bay / Pebble Beach; according to these drawings several anchors and anchor chains (under tension!!!) will become exposed during low tide.

3. Covenant Zone

Bowen Island Municipality has been alerted repeatedly that a foundation of Dock #11 has been illegally placed within a specially protected zone (Covenant Zone). A detailed interpretation of the applicable delineation of the Covenant Zone in accordance with the Land Act has been submitted to BIM. The seaside border of the Covenant Zone is defined by the natural boundary in accordance with the Land Act. Substantial research submitted to the Municipality convincingly contradicts the interpretation of the natural boundary by Bennet Land Surveying. The boundary lines documented in the Plans BCP43265 and BCP41220 do not represent the actual conditions at the site (#11; and possibly elsewhere). They are misleading.

In addition the recent access to information request with Transport Canada has yielded construction drawings for the dock at lot#11 that show the footing of the concrete foundation clearly submerged at high tide.

This depiction is in stark contrast to the observed reality on site. After more than 6 months of witnessing the highest tides at the location of dock #11 during the observed water levels always stayed clearly below the footing. The submitted drawings misrepresent the actual situation. The drawings are erroneous and provide further proof that the footing is indeed within the Covenant Zone.

So far the Municipality has failed to provide a satisfactory explanation why the well-founded concerns regarding the violations of the Covenant Zone and the calls for action and enforcement have been ignored. In an email dated November 27, 2013 (Annie Dempster to Melissa Harrison, Tamsin Miley et all) the Municipality first confirms the relevance of the definition of the natural boundary in accordance with the Land Act. The message then continues – in obvious contradiction of the Land Act definition – to confirm that the footing of the concrete foundation at lot #11 is standing two meters within Collingwood Channel. Absurd! As can be easily observed on site this is evidently not the case.

In view of the blatant discrepancies between the actual on-site conditions and the documented surveyed condition it is not acceptable that the Municipality simply accepts the existing survey. Since the Covenant Zone falls within the jurisdiction of the Municipality it is important that this zone is correctly delineated. The Municipality is urged to seek a second independent opinion to clearly establish the correct boundaries of the Covenant zone.

I trust the above concerns regarding Eelgrass, NWPA and Covenant Zone sufficiently substantiate my call for an immediate suspension of the dock construction works at dock #11.

Please don’t hesitate to contact me in case of any questions.

Sincerely,

Dr. Richard Wiefelspuett

Share

Amended Dock Bylaw Passes – No Protection for Cape Roger Curtis

Bowen Island Municipal Council passed an amended dock bylaw on Nov. 25. For details, including the Stop The Docks Nov. 26 letter to Minister Thomson, see dock bylaw passes despite widespread opposition.

Two important and positive amendments were made in third reading.

1. The maximum length of a dock was reduced from 60m to 40m.

2. The purpose of the WG1 zone was revised:

“The purpose of the Water General Coastal 1 Zone is specifically to provide public recreational opportunities, to preserve and protect the natural qualities of Bowen Island’s shoreline and to provide for the orderly development regulation of recreational boat moorage associated directly with upland uses.”

VOTING RECORD

  • Councillors Duntz and Jennings recused themselves from voting, citing conflict of interest.
  • Councillor Stone introduced and fought for the motion to reduce the dock length. Councillors Lucas, Morse, Rhodes, and Stone voted in favour of this amendment. Mayor Adelaar registered his opposition.
  • Councillors Lucas, Morse, Rhodes, and Stone voted in favour of the amended bylaw.

THE UPDATED DOCK BYLAW REPORT CARD

No Protection of
Cape Roger Curtis
an 'x' mark showing this item fails the test The bylaws do not designate the Cape coastline, or the high use section between the public parks at the Lighthouse, Pebble Beach, and Arbutus Point, as a ‘no private docks zone’. Over 1,350 residents and visitors have called for full protection of the Cape shoreline.
Inadequate Protection of Sensitive Marine Habitat an 'x' mark showing this item fails the test The bylaws provide inadequate protection of sensitive marine habitat. Council must assure protection of the tidal pools, mussel and eelgrass beds, underwater kelp forests and orca and other sensitive marine habitat features of the Cape coast.
Massive Size of
Private Docks
an 'x' mark showing this item fails the test The bylaws permit large scale docks to be built at the Cape. Docks will be allowed up to 60m (197’) in length. Docks of any scale should not be permitted at the Cape. CHANGED TO 40m.
No Breakwaters or Boathouses check mark showing this item succeeds The bylaws provide for the elimination of breakwaters and boathouses. This will help ensure that private docks or boathouses are not constructed in inappropriate waters, such as the highly exposed shorelines at Cape Roger Curtis.
No Protection of
Public Beaches
an 'x' mark showing this item fails the test The bylaws allow for private docks to be placed 10 metres from public beach access points. Private docks should not be allowed on our public beaches – they impair the public use and enjoyment of the Cape Roger Curtis beaches forever.
Share