SUBMISSION TO PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING
BYLAW NO. 3498, AMENDMENT TO
OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN FOR EAST SOOKE

January 22, 2008

I wish to express my concern over the proposed amendment to the East Sooke OCP for the following reasons:

This amendment is a precursor to bylaw 3474, a zoning bylaw amendment crafted by the CRD to take control of the subdivision process for Rural and Forestry lands in light of the proposed sale of TFL lands in Jordan River. I feel that to use such a heavy handed approach in this community is unwarranted. The OCP is a community document and since bylaw 3474 passed first and second reading on November 14, there has been no debate or consultation at the community level regarding this OCP amendment.

Apparently the timing of the fiasco over the sale of WFP lands has been a boon to the LUC in implementing a downzoning policy which has been in the works for many months. It would appear that the “satisfaction survey” circulated in 2006 has served as a mandate for this move. When I reviewed the survey questions pertaining specifically to land use, I found that, based on the results, the number of people in East Sooke who felt 4 on 10’s should not be allowed was 27. The number of people who felt that subdivision of 10 acre parcels should no longer be permitted was 39 – maybe 3% of the community. The survey would have more accurately reflected the direction of land use policy if it had asked how many people support prohibiting subdivision of all properties between 20 and 300 acres and allowing only one dwelling per property.

Now, land subdivision will be within the purview of the CRD and rezoning applications will be approved at the pleasure of the Land Use Committee which should allow communities more input in how their future unfolds. However, the proposed amendment will, in my view, impose such overzealous downzoning on large rural properties not adjacent to the settlement containment areas, that it will effectively strip these property owners of any control over their land and drastically reduce their property value.

Like most other people I chose to make my home here because of the rural lifestyle. I value the right of a community to self determination and I recognize that this community is urgently seeking protection from the threat of unregulated development. But the proposed amendment aims to secure that protection almost entirely on the backs of a small number of owners of large properties that formed the core of the rural community long before there was any such thing as a settlement containment boundary. As one LUC member recently acknowledged, these people will indeed be “taking one on the chin”. This is tantamount to appropriation.

We have an opportunity here. Right now the tail is wagging the dog, fast tracking OCP amendments to mirror zoning bylaw amendments that are on their way through the approval process.

The OCP should encapsulate the vision of the community as a whole, not that of one sector over another. I do not believe that imposing a minimum parcel size of 300 acres on rural landowners and leaving them to take their chances with the LUC is good enough.
I would like to think that our OCP would be more representative of the community because time was taken to negotiate a compromise solution that is more fair and reasonable for land owners in East Sooke while still addressing the concerns of the community at large.