City council reluctantly complied with the province’s “tyrannical” housing legislation at council’s regular meeting May 23.
“There’s nothing in this that I like and then the unintended consequences are terrible for our community,” Mayor Kermit Dahl said. “Our only hope is that in the future, someone who values the input of communities more may change this legislation.”
Dahl and other councillors complained about the province’s Bill 44: Housing Statues (Residential Development) Amendment Act, 2023, passed by the province in November 2023. That legislation requires municipalities to amend their zoning bylaws by June 30, 2024, to allow for greater flexibility within traditionally-zoned single-family neighbourhoods by addressing housing affordability and supply challenges by diversifying the housing stock.
Councillors weren’t against the concept of increasing housing infill, they just didn’t like the heavy-handedness of the provincial legislation and what they saw as limited consultation with affected parties ahead of passage.
The May 23 council meeting dealt with a motion to give first, second and third readings to Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 3958, 2024 which contained amendments that would bring the city’s zoning bylaw into compliance with the province’s Bill 44.
Coun. Ron Kerr kicked off the debate with a declaration that he would not be supporting the motion.
“I’ve got many concerns about the unintended consequences of this incomplete and rushed legislation by the provincial NDP government which usurps municipal powers,” Kerr said. “This legislation largely eviscerates local municipal oversight and control of planning housing approval processes and keeps council and the public out of the conversation.”
Kerr said Bill 44 mandates zoning in residential neighbourhoods in nearly every B.C. municipality, without regard to local conditions and cultural sensitivities.
“This is a striking example of senior government overreach by this radical NDP government. It’s an extreme knee jerk reaction to housing supply shortage, which they and the federal government have created. The consequences of these bills, like the heavy drug legalization and public consumption, illegal substances legislation will be borne by the citizens of this community.”
Councillors were all generally in agreement with the dissatisfaction over how the legislation came down but the discussion was also coloured by the reality that this legislation is mandated by the province and if council didn’t comply voluntarily with its own bylaws, then the legislation would be imposed by the province.
Staff put forward a motion
“I don’t feel as though we have a choice,” Coun. Ben Lanyon said. “I think that what staff has presented to us (in the motion) is the best version of what we have available to us.”
One aspect of the legislation that particularly rankled councillors was the prohibition on holding public hearings on the mandated zoning amendments.
Lanyon said, “council is prohibited from having a public hearing. I don’t understand that.”
It was pointed out to council by staff that although public hearings are barred the public has input though the development of the Official Community Plan (currently being reviewed). Zoning implements what the Official Community Plan dictates.
But Mayor Dahl took a drastic view of the prohibition on public hearings. He didn’t think it would go well with the community when they “find out that their provincial NDP government just eliminated any consultation that they have.”
“Not only are they telling us that we don’t have to have public hearings but telling us we can’t have public hearing,” Dahl said. “That’s what doesn’t sit well with me.”
Earlier in the meeting, the mayor said, “I think Coun. Kerr had that right where he’s spoke about tyrannical government and dictatorships. Tyrants and dictators don’t want your feedback.”
Coun. Doug Chapman floated the idea that council could get around the ban on public hearings by having “town hall” meetings instead.
City director of development services Ian Buck advised against that.
“I would recommend against that,” Buck said. “I don’t know if it would if it would be in direct conflict with the legislation but, yeah, I just don’t think that’s a good idea at this point.”
Buck offered to clarify the prohibition on public hearing concept. The reasons the government did that came directly from developers, he said, through the development application process review that was done in 2017. Public hearings were seen by a lot of developers as a barrier to getting items approved because they would design and go forward in accordance with what fish community plans wanted.
And then as council is well aware about public hearing, he said, they stir “up the interests of the neighborhood. And the neighborhood shows up with negative comments and many councils then react to that, and defeat applications. So just to clarify, that’s where the concept of not holding public hearings came from.”
