There was a better way — APC laid it out clearly
There is a better way to do this work.
Clear sequencing.
Connected documents.
And making sure people can actually understand how decisions impact their land, their livelihoods, and their communities.
On May 14, 2025, we didn’t just raise concerns — we offered a clear path forward.
We called for the OCP, the zoning bylaw, and the local area plans to be reviewed together — not in pieces, not months apart, but as one complete picture people could actually understand before decisions were made.
We knew these MOCP policies would have a direct impact across the entire region. They would drive everything that followed — and how they were interpreted and applied needed to be clearly understood before the document was adopted.
What was happening at the time
All of the CVRD Advisory Planning Commissions were deep in the MOCP review.
At that point, I was Chair of the Area F APC and Vice-Chair of the Area I APC. Across the board, there was a shared feeling — time was running short, pressure was building, and there were still major gaps in the document.
The staff recommended 2nd reading but the board had paused moving the bylaw forward in March, and there was discussion about getting APC input on the full document. Some areas were referred. Others weren’t.
From the minutes:
“It was moved and seconded that it be recommended to the Board that ‘CVRD Bylaw No. 4373…’ be referred to all Electoral Area APCs, except for Areas A, C and I…”
So even at that stage, the process wasn’t consistent across the region.
But that’s not really what this post is about.
APC Chairs Letter – May 14 2025
What I want to share is a letter from the Area F APC, directed by the Commission and submitted with our official minutes.
It was thoughtful, detailed, and respectful of the work staff had done. But it was also clear — the legislation as it stood, was not reflecting the needs of rural values and communities.
We highlighted:
- Policies we supported
- Areas that didn’t align with rural realities
- The loss of long-standing land use designations around the lake
- A growing level of standardization that didn’t reflect local character
And importantly, we made a very clear recommendation:
These documents need to be reviewed together so people can actually understand the impact.
Why that mattered then — and still matters now
The OCP, zoning bylaw, and local area plans don’t operate in isolation, they are tightly connected.
When they’re reviewed separately:
- People can’t see the full impact
- Important details get missed
- Feedback becomes less meaningful
A unified review would have allowed people to clearly understand what was changing — not just in policy language, but on the ground.
A missed opportunity
We weren’t just raising concerns — we were offering a practical path forward.
It came from people who had spent hundreds of hours reviewing the material.
It was grounded in real community knowledge. And it was aimed at helping everyone — the Board and the public — make better decisions.
That recommendation wasn’t taken.
Sharing this now
I’m sharing that letter in full so people can see a glimpse of the level of work and thought that went into the feedback. And while it came through the Area F APC, the concerns raised weren’t unique to one area — they reflect what many communities across the region were saying at the time.
MOCP-Review-AREA-F-APC-Board-Letter-Final-2025-OCP-does-not-represent-our-rural-needs
This post isn’t about process — that’s a much bigger conversation.
This is about the engagement that was ignored, and making sure people can see what was actually put forward along the way.
