Category Archives: Uncategorized

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.


Give them some love!

Council to vote Monday March 16th

MARCH 2015

For a couple of years now, Bowen Islanders have been asking Council loudly and clearly to stop dock building at Cape Roger Curtis. The shoreline of the cape 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. And it is also an important draw for tourism on the island.

Now before us them a clear, simple resolution of Council that could finally show clear resolve on the part of our island. It siezes on our rights and duties as owners of the public foreshore at Cape Roger  and declares to the Provincial Government that we do oppose dock building there. Council will vote Monday on a resolution to say no to more big docks at Cape Roger Curtis. You can read the resolution here.

Bowen Island councillors who are voting in favour of the resolution are showing courage and the ability to hear the public. Let’s show them some love! They’re not alone – communities up and down the coast have said no to big docks for years. But on Bowen, they still will take some heat for their positive decision.

Join us at Council Chambers on Monday, March 16th to encourage them to support the resolution. Let them know you care about the issue and about them. Encourage those councillors who might otherwise vote against the resolution and for the status quo to reconsider in light of your keen interest in the topic.

Council convenes at 6:30. The will be in a closed meeting from 6:35 until 7pm, then return to public meeting.

If you can’t make, and even if you can, why not send them some moral support…

We’re still in it to win it!


Ombudsperson Investigation of Docks Process

By Richard Wiefelspuett

 Island Municipality (BIM) and Council are under investigation

In March 2014 the municipality was informed by the office of the ombudsperson that an open investigation of the municipality and Council had been launched. This came as the result of my formal complaint filed in December 2013.

The Office of the Ombudsperson receives enquiries and complaints about the practices and services of public agencies within its jurisdiction. Their role is to impartially investigate these complaints to determine whether public agencies have acted fairly and reasonably, and whether their actions and decisions were consistent with relevant legislation, policies and procedures.

In its core my complaint focuses on the current Council (2011 – 2014) and their skewed handling of the private dock applications on Cape Roger Curtis. During the open investigation the complaint has been expanded to include cogent examples of Council’s conduct, with respect to alleged violations of the Community Charter closed meeting provisions and a range of examples that illustrate conflict of interest issues on the part of some council members.

To my knowledge BIM or members of the current Council (2011- 2014) have never informed the public about the ongoing investigation until Tim Rhodes’ brief mention of a citizen initiated request to the Office of the Ombudsperson to investigate the docks approval process. (see Bowen Island All Candidates Forum 2014 on Facebook; Tim Rhodes; November 10, 2014 at 10:48 pm). Therein Tim Rhodes states that “the provincial Ombudsman reviewed the process and found everything in order.”

In fact the investigation is still ongoing and the Ombudsman has only recently asked for additional information related to the legal advice BIM and Council received during the dock application process.

In fact an initial finding confirms that the Bull, Housser and Tupper advice regarding the powers of BIM and Council to reject the dock approvals is correct (‪…/06/May-23-2013-Legal-Opinion1.pdf).

In factCouncil lacked the political will to protect the public interest and preserve the coastline of CRC but followed a different agenda instead.

I have posted three documents (see links below) to provide additional information on content and status of the complaint.

Bulletin Text (

This is a copy of the article published in the Bulletin (12 November 2014). It provides an overview of the complaint and the status of the investigation.

Formal complaint (

The Office of the Ombudsperson provides an online format for the filing of a complaint. The attached document shows the various headers of the template and the specified content of my initial complaint.

March Update (

Following the launch of the open investigation in March 2014 additional information obtained through an access of information request was provided to the Ombudsperson. This document provides a detailed timeline of the communication between Bowen Island Municipality (BIM), Council, the dock proponents and the Province related to the dock applications. It reveals a fascinating story, a genuine  “whodunnit”. In summary the document shows that the Province requested a letter of support for the docks from BIM as a precondition to granting the foreshore leases to the dock proponents. This letter was never sent. Still the docks were approved.



Where do your candidates stand?


Your vote and your beaches

Private docks on public beaches and the Cape Roger Curtis shoreline remain an ongoing community issue on Bowen Island. The next Council will have an opportunity to plug holes in the 2013 dock bylaw, complete the promised second bylaw initiated by our current Council, and move on. There are many important matters such as seniors’ and low cost housing, enhanced tourism, building a community hall and others that need us to be pulling together as an island. Healing this division – and maintaining our public beaches – is a relatively quick way to demonstrate leadership and help bring us all back together, so it really matters what candidates believe.

On October 25th, StopTheDocks sent a request for a position statement about private docks to all the candidates in the 2014 Municipal Election.

See the survey results here:

We provided each candidate with a form: three yes/no questions and space for a comment. We followed up with calls and emails to anyone who may have missed our first request, to invite their input, and we extended our deadline to give every opportunity to participate. To date, ten of the fourteen candidates have responded on this topic to the over 1300 people who petitioned for a stop to the docks at Cape Roger Curtis. Four candidates (Tim Rhodes, Alison Morse, Marcus Freeman & Michael Kaile) decided not to state their positions, though they are welcome to add their voices whenever they wish.

The questions were:
1. Do you support the future construction of private docks on public beaches at Cape Roger Curtis?
2. Do you support the future construction of private docks on Bowen Island’s public beaches?
3. How would you rate the priority of proceeding with Phase 2 of the Bowen dock bylaw?
4. Please provide a brief statement to reflect your position on the issue of private docks on Bowen Island.

To questions 1 and 2, all but one of the respondents answered ‘No’. Each provided their own take on the importance of the subject to them and/or the direction they would take. Among those who stated a priority level, the average priority was 8/10.

The survey provides insight into the thinking and responsiveness that potential council members may bring to future decisions pertaining to the natural and social environment of our island home. In an election with so many excellent potential candidates and one of the highest participation rates in our democracy, we’re very optimistic that a balanced Council will emerge with the resolve to protect our public beaches.

Another Dock Application is in process at Cape Roger Curtis

Council adopted the first phase of a new docks bylaw on November 25, 2013. Unfortunately, the new bylaw fails to achieve protection for the Cape Roger Curtis shoreline and Bowen’s other public beaches. Many other Vancouver Metro municipalities have stopped accepting large docks.  But here, an eighth dock application is actively under review at Lot 17 at the Cape. This makes the docks bylaw a top priority.

See and SUBMIT PUBLIC COMMENT on the latest application for a dock at Cape Roger Curtis Lot 17

Concerned citizens need to submit comments by December 4th.

W E ‘ R E    I N   I T   T O   W I N   I T   –   H A P P Y    V O T I N G !


Candidate Survey Results

On October 25th, 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. We also followed up by contacting anyone who didn’t respond to confirm they knew about the survey and to find out if they might respond in some way. Here are the responses of those who chose to participate, to the over 1300 people who petitioned for a stop to the docks at Cape Roger Curtis – and Bowen Island voters.

The questions were:
1. Do you support the future construction of private docks on public beaches at Cape Roger Curtis?
2. Do you support the future construction of private docks on Bowen Island’s public beaches?
3. How would you rate the priority of proceeding with Phase 2 of the Bowen dock bylaw?
4. Please provide a brief statement to reflect your position on the issue of private docks on Bowen Island.

Support private docks at Cape Roger Curtis? Support private docks on Public Beaches? Priority
Gary Ander - - -
Comments In response to your survey, Questions 1 and 2 are not really relevant as there is now the Phase 1 Bylaw that will manage dock construction on Bowen in the future. Phase 2 should be completed and enacted to protect sensitive foreshore area. Thank-you for your concern.
Stacey Beamer No No 7
Comments (excerpt) We need a clear community policy with regard to future docks that honours the needs of the environment the community and the land owner. More
Michael Chapman No No 11
Comments Having a small dock to access your boat or house is one thing. Building huge noisy industrial structures across delicate inter-tidal zones as a marketing scheme for multi-million dollar undeveloped properties is wrong in so many ways.
Sue Ellen Fast No No 5
Comments I love public beaches and have worked to protect and open access to them over 15 years on Bowen. The new Phase 1 Dock Bylaw is far more permissive than the process in place earlier. Rescinding or replacing Phase 1 might be simpler and more effective. More
Marcus Freeman - - -
Comments no response
Yvette Gabrielle No No 6
Comments I support public beaches to remain enjoyable by the public. Our economy, tourism, real estate values and quality of life all benefit by maintaining public access to beautiful, serene beaches.
Michael Kaile - - -
Comments In response may I refer you to the Municipal website where information on myself and other candidates is posted. A copy of my platform is also attached.
I will not, however, be completing your questionnaire.
Melanie Mason No No 8
Comments I believe that public access and enjoyment of public beaches is a very important amenity to our island community. I believe it should be protected not only for our enjoyment now but also for the future generations. I also firmly believe that fragile ecosystems and habitats such as eelgrass beds should be fully protected.
Alison Morse - - -
Comments no response
Maureen Nicholson No No 8
Comments Private docks do not belong on public beaches. If elected to council, I would consider the second phase of the dock bylaw as unfinished, essential policy work. I look forward to Stop The Docks becoming unnecessary because we have adequate bylaw protection in place to protect our public beaches.
Tim Rhodes - - -
Comments no response
Murray Skeels No No 10
Comments I like your definition of public beach. My guess is we’ll use that wording in the bylaw. See the definition of beaches
Peter Williamson No No 10
Comments Private docks are not appropriate for beaches, ecologically sensitive areas and scenic shorelines. I would move immediately to protect beaches from docks, and then work with data coming from ecological surveys to designate other areas for protection. Cape Roger Curtis is one scenic seascape that also needs protection.
George Zawadski No No*  —
Comments Won’t comment on bylaw until I get a better grasp on it, but I can say I want to put a priority on putting this issue behind us and move on. *Yes if a public dock More

Further Comments

We asked candidates to make an initial short statement, but offered extra space if they had more to say.

Stacey Beamer – My understanding is that the community has the authority to greatly influence the dock approval process with the province and we have done so in the past, both pre and post incorporation. Not sure how this fact got lost or surrendered with regard to Roger Curtis as I was not privy to any meetings or negotiations that may or may not have occurred.
My direct experience with the province and dock applications is that if the municipality says a clear no with sound rational, based on the community’s best interest, the province will side with the community.
But we must clearly say no and have defensible rational for doing so.
We need a clear community policy with regard to future docks that honours the needs of the environment the community and the land owner. A policy that works in the long term best interest of Bowen. It should be proactive and not reactive Such a policy should be crafted with care and consider the big picture. We have plenty of examples of bad (reactionary) rules causing more damage than no rules would have.

The outcome at Roger Curtis including the docks was a complete disaster in my view.
I am not interested in focusing wholly on blaming individuals or groups for the outcome. It is a collective disaster that started a couple decades ago when well intentioned local folks thought it wise to zone a majestic property like Roger Curtis for ten acre lots and at the same time did not provide clear terms for the inevitable dock applications that will come anytime we create waterfront lots.
It is clear that this council made some poor strategic choices that irrevocably harmed the Capes amazing foreshore environment and the community’s interest in it.
It is also equally clear that the council before this one made poor strategic choices that irrevocably harmed this precious 600 acre land parcel, and the people’s interest in it.
I have never met anyone who ever wanted to hurt Bowen. Our greatest tragic irony is that we have all been on the same page in so many ways for so long.
When I realized this years ago it allowed me to have compassion for everybody involved.
Nobody wanted to fail or do damage to mother Bowen. But we did. Over and over again by making well intentioned choices in isolation.
Every rule, every choice has an impact on the ground.
There is no point in focusing on blame. It is toxic and saps our collective energy. I would propose that we focus on learning from OUR mistakes so that we can move forward collectively. All a little wiser and not fall into the same traps over and over again.
In a way you could say that I would like to help create mechanisms that allow the community to self reflect. To look in the collective mirror and realize we are not now, nor have we ever been, victims.
We are the masters of our own successes and failures.
This philosophical shift to taking responsibility for our actions is critical in my view. We have spent years focused on the Roger Curtis blame game instead of realizing that the same short sighted but well intention zoning that destroyed Roger Curtis is still in place on many other large parcels of land. The same fate awaits many large parcels of land on the island if we stay focused on blame instead of the wisdom that comes from admitting we screwed up.

Sue Ellen Fast – Earlier, many factors were considered and analyzed for each individual application, and the public and Council and staff and advisory committees, and our Official Community Plan (OCP) including Parks Plan all had a role. The new Phase 1 Dock Bylaw considers only a few factors, there is no public role, no role for Council or committees, and no reference to OCP with Parks Plan. Staff will presumably respond to referrals based on the few factors.

This frees applicants from carefully planning their structures so they don’t impact all the various public values and benefits, such as swimming or neighbouring views. I expect more, bigger, more intrusive docks, and more community discord, whether a Phase 2 bylaw protecting public beaches is created or not.

The rules are changing off-island too in a de-regulatory direction, with the province providing guidelines instead of rules dock applicants and not regulating compliance. Restoring the option to Council to tell the province that any particular dock applicatoion is supported or not supported would help.

Background: Once the municipality was formed and became recognized by the province, docks were regulated through a municipal public process that welcomed various community input and took all sorts of factors into consideration, such as at Pebbly Beach – the Council Minutes for Aug 27, 2001 (starts page 3).
The province took the advice of BIM.

In 2004 BIM created our first Land Use Bylaw, including the bits about not dividing a beach or damaging eel grass. At some point staff took over commenting on most dock applications instead of Council, and BIPRC or Greenways Advisory Committee was asked by staff for input. All sorts of factors, not just length, eelgrass or dividing a beach were taken into consideration by staff and advisory groups, along with the OCP and Parks Plan. The public, including neighbours, could still comment to BIM or province and everybody seemed to feel heard.
The province took the advice of BIM. Until recently.

George Zawadski – Though I am big on respecting property owners rights, this is too contentious an issue that has been dealt with poorly by both sides, and we need to avoid a fiasco that divides the community even further. Besides, I seriously question the logic behind building docks that are susceptible to the fierce storms that are common out there. After watching the Not on The Agenda video.. all I can say after shaking my head in disgust is.. it’s time for a serious attitude adjustment by both sides. We need a mayor and council who will listen respectfully, not walk out of chambers, point fingers, and argue with the concerns of 1300+ people. Conversely, the public has to be equally respectful of mayor and council and the often thankless job they are doing for the community. In the future, Mayor and council will have many issues to deal with, not just the docks.. and those who insist on coming to council demanding to be heard “now”, will IMO, do more harm than good to their initiatives.

Defining Beaches

Here is the definition we provided in the survey:
“A ‘public beach’ is defined for this survey to mean a foreshore area (pebble or sand beach, or rocky bench) used by the general public for recreational activities such as picnicking, swimming, diving/snorkeling, and for kayaks, paddle boards or sailboats. Water use areas for recreational power boating or personal watercraft are not considered part of a ‘public beach’. The ‘public beach’would be the commonly used recreational shoreline area and a reasonable distance offshore to protect public safety and public use. For example, the public foreshore and adjacent waters at beaches such as September Morn, Sandy Beach, Deep Bay, Eaglecliff, Cates Bay, Crayola Beach, King Edward Bay, Bowen Bay, Tunstall Bay, Cape Roger Curtis (Arbutus Point and Pebble Beach to Lighthouse), Alder Bay and Seymour Bay would be considered a ‘public beach’.”


Absence of effective environmental monitoring of dock construction

Mayor Jack Adelaar and Members of Council
Bowen Island Municipality
981 Artisan Lane, Bowen Island, B.C.
V0N 1G2
22 July 2013
Read and delivered to BIM in Public Comments at Council meeting

Dear Mayor Adelaar and Members of Council

Re: Absence of effective environmental monitoring of dock construction at Cape Roger Curtis lands

I would like to put on public record Stop The Docks’ concerns about the apparent lack of environmental monitoring for the ongoing construction at Cape Roger Curtis. This monitoring was a requirement of provincial government approval of the dock applications – it was a pre-condition, in fact – and, so far as we can tell, no one is taking ownership of the job.

Work was undertaken from Wednesday to Friday last week and on Sunday over the weekend, all without an environmental monitor being present.

If we have concerns about environmental impact as a pile driver thumps through the seabed, or construction debris litters the public beach, or a huge barge works all day over a bull kelp forest or an eelgrass meadow in increasingly shallow water, what do we do?

We have made a number of inquiries, with the following results:

We know that if construction starts on the proposed docks at Lots 6 and 15 that we call the BIM Bylaw Officer. This is because construction is not allowed at the moment.

For Lots 11 and 13, according to municipal staff we are supposed to contact the consultants hired by the Cape on Bowen, Pottinger Gaherty Ltd (PGL), to register a concern about environmental monitoring. We have attempted to do so, using the contact information provided in the dive surveys and by workers onsite. One environmental monitor listed in the surveys is no longer assigned to the Cape project. We were advised that another person is now in charge, Stephanie Louie. When we attempted to contact her, we were told by Bruce Nidle of PGL that any concerns were to be reported to BIM, which directly contradicts the advice provided by BIM to Stop The Docks.

Mr. Nidle’s statement also contradicts PGL’s own report dated May 16, 2013, to the owner of Lot 13 that the construction of the unauthorized concrete footings in late April “was not monitored by the EM, however all future construction activities will be monitored”.

According to the municipality, if provincial or federal legislation is being contravened, we are supposed to contact the provincial or federal agency responsible for the legislation.

We have attempted to do that, too. An inquiry regarding procedure for registering complaints resulted in an email trail across multiple government agencies showing the involvement of 11 different government employees over 10 days. To what end? The result of that 10-day email chase – though it can barely be called a “result” – was someone eventually asking, “What is your question?” It’s a good thing it wasn’t an emergency!

We would like to know who is in charge of environmental monitoring for the Cape construction. If no one is in charge, we would like that to be acknowledged now and corrected. And we would like everyone involved to be aware of their responsibilities and to meet them.

Further, I would like to put on public record Stop The Docks’ related concerns about the reliability of the dive surveys supporting these dock applications and the answerability of environmental monitors commissioned and instructed by the owner-developers/dock applicants. Our review of the dive survey for Lot 13 suggests that Balanced Environmental considered the lease area but not the entire impact area. This is to say that the area which will be impacted by the construction and use extends beyond the lease area, yet the environmental consultant surveyed only the lease area. My understanding is that there is a bull kelp forest just beyond the end of the proposed wharf.

The body being used for environmental monitoring at the Cape, PGL, is being commissioned and instructed by the owner-developers. How can your confidence be high when the same consultants assured the Cape on Bowen that they could plant the cedar hedge and erect a fence along the statutory right of way, contrary to the covenant, forcing BIM to have to request and police their removal? One can make a mistake once, perhaps, but now PGL seems to be advising the Cape on Bowen that native species would, somehow, not infringe the covenant. This does not inspire my confidence.

Against the background of the experience at the Cape, I would like to see a “user pays” system for dive surveys introduced in the draft dock bylaw, in which the applicant pays for the dive survey but BIM commissions it, and I would like to see environment monitoring provisions that actually have some teeth.

Please address these process issues, both for the Cape and in light of the planned re-zoning for private and group moorages across the island. Please also ensure this letter is included in the information items on the next Council agenda.

Thank you

Yours truly,

Tamsin Miley, 1471 Tunstall Boulevard, Bowen Island cc. Kathy Lalonde


Isn’t 60m (200 feet) very, very long?

Answer: Yes it is.  Peter Williamson’s research on Bowen docks, below, suggests that 200 feet is far longer than almost all Bowen docks.  With only seven private docks longer than 40m across the island, just two longer than 60m, a 60m ‘limit’ opens the door to super long docks.

On the whole docks on Bowen tend to be about 20 m long. Many are shorter. There are a few very long docks, and these I have listed below. As far as I can tell, the longest private dock on Bowen Island is 68 m long. That is the dock that, when it was built some years ago, raised an outcry from the people of Tunstall Bay. It stands right next to another dock of similar length and was the result of two neighbors who were unable to bring themselves to share a dock.

The longer docks are all built at beaches, generally across the rocky parts of the beaches, as in Tunstall Bay. Beaches, because of the gradual slope necessitate long docks, but I think it is unlikely that we will see any more long docks in places like this. So, the long dock being built now at Lot 13 on Cape Roger Curtis is, at 121m, nearly twice the length of any other private dock on Bowen Island. This is across a rocky shelf of intertidal zone that extends nearly 100 m from the shore.

Here are my figures.  I took them from the MapIT function on the Islands Trust website. You click on Properties Application > Launch application. Once you bring up the relevant part of the map, you can go into Tools > Measure and then select the zig-zag looking tool which allows you to measure straight lines. Using this method I came up with the following for all of the longer docks on Bowen island.

Size of longest Docks on Bowen Island

  • Tunstall Bay Community Association                         87m not private dock
  • First dock to north at Tunstall Bay                             68m
  • Dock next to that                                                        66m
  • Longest docks in the area S of Bowen Bay               47m
  • Two docks at Bowen Bay                                           21m, 23m
  • Dock at King Edward Bay                                          17m
  • Government Dock – Mt Gardner                                 63m not private dock
  • Dock at beach south of Finistere Island                     53m
  • Eaglecliff                                                                    52m – community dock
  • Longest dock in Manion Bay                                      57m
  • CNIB                                                                           98m not a private dock when built
  • Longest dock Snug Point                                           45m
  • Dorman Point                                                             22m
  • L-shaped dock at Fairweather (total both arms)        42m
  • Private dock under construction at Lot 13, CRC       121m

Why so Long?

Those in favour of these docks would say that it is the topography that necessitates such a long dock – to reach water deep enough to moor a boat. Indeed it does, although the other way of looking at it is that the topography makes it an inappropriate place to have a dock. It seems that we are stuck in a 1950s mindset where such considerations don’t come into play. The more contemporary, but hardly novel, notion that public space should be preserved and protected for public enjoyment, and this includes the viewscape, does not seem to have reached Bowen Island Municipality.

I think that what has happened is that we have gone from allowing people with waterfront lots on rocky foreshore to have a small walkway out to create a moorage spot, to thinking that somehow it is a right for waterfront land-owners to do whatever it takes to be able to moor a boat in front of the house.

Permission to build this latest dock at Lot 13 takes the notion even further, by allowing a dock and a very exposed cape with a huge breakwaters are needed to make it in any way feasible to moor a boat there. That the breakwaters have been disallowed is a glimmer of common sense, but that is not matched by common sense from the proponent who is going ahead with the dock anyway. So, docks on Bowen Island have gone from needing a few wooden posts embedded just off the shore to needing major engineering works and 25 foot steel towers to support them.

Who knows what such a dock will cost? I suspect it is running to hundreds of thousands of dollars. As you know, the owner himself has linked the construction of the dock to a jump in the real estate value of his lot. This is another dimension that makes me cynical. Usually, when planning authorities make zoning changes which increase the value of a block of land, there is some sort of a charge all amenity fee or, in the case of Bowen Island, there is generally some amount of land set aside for public use such as a park. Nothing of the sort is happening with this dock development.

Our mechanism for regulating these docks, even if the proposed docks bylaw goes through, is still way behind the game.


No Breakwaters: email from Ministry of Forests, Lands & Natural Resources

The province confirmed on May 23, 2013 that the breakwaters were NOT approved in the Cape Roger Curtis dock tenures.

From: Anderson, Keith FLNR:EX []
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 4:00 PM
To: Doug Hooper
Subject: RE: Cape Roger Curtis docks

Hi Doug:

I have finally had a chance to get back to your note.

1. Breakwaters
The applications were accepted for review with proposed development plans that included breakwaters and these proposals were sent out to referral agencies with the breakwaters in the referral package.  However, after reviewing the private moorage policy, we concluded that the construction of new breakwaters was not considered as an acceptable structure under the current policy.  A review of the standard wording provided in the purpose statement under the policy which is loaded into the documents also does not make reference to breakwaters.  In creating the documents, the standard wording , provided in the policy,  was used.   As a result there is no authorization to construct a breakwater in the Licences Of Occupation which were issued on files 241700, 02410701, 2410702, or 2410703.   The purpose statement for each of the documents reads:

On the terms and conditions set out in this Agreement, we grant you a licence of occupation of the Land for the purpose of constructing , operating and maintaining a dock, wharf, or pier (including walkway ramp) or combination thereof, used for personal, non-commercial use.

2. Tenure term
The current private moorage policy designates Specific Permissions as the standard form of tenure. The Specific Permissions do not have a term, they run in perpetuity with the land.  A decision was made to issue a Licence of Occupation for 5 years rather than the specific permission because the applicants indicated they would try to build much smaller facilities than they had submitted in their original proposal.  The shorter term will allow the ministry to determine how much area is actually required before issuing a long term tenure, with the expectation that the overall area for each site will be much smaller.

Please let me know when you would like to meet.

Keith Anderson
Manager, Authorizations
South Coast Region
Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations
Suite 200,  10428 153rd Street
Surrey BC V3R 1E1